Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: RE: Addressing Cisco Security Issues
From: Michael Reilly <michaelr () cisco com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:10:50 -0800
Not to take sides in this but I ran into a similar thing with my ESP. I could have easily obtained the image but I talked with my ESP. Turns out they have some valid concerns about people downing an image the ESP has not provided. In this case the major concern was making sure the customer got the correct image (there are four different ones available for my 678 and only one of them works with my ISP). They were also concerned about the possibility of an image they haven't tested causing problems with their equipment/network.
I do not have the answer - just pointing out that doing the right thing isn't always simple.
I am not writing for Cisco - just describing my own experience. michael Burton M. Strauss III wrote:
Really, your gripe is with Alltel which refused to provide it to you. Maybe a non-Alltel e-mail account is a red flag, but they certainly should have been willing to provide it to the contact address they have on your account. Whether electronically or via snail mail - I'm SURE they have an address for you so you can be billed, right??? In Cisco's defense, there are 1000s (10000s? 100000s?) of these units out there and most of them have ISP specific configurations. If you apply generic firmware, you are going to wipe the settings - and Cisco has no way of knowing how the unit was configured. Still, it would be best practices for Cisco to provide the generic firmware, with a document showing how to save and restore the settings. However, they may not be contractually able to do so... -----BurtonI have to post this because I consider this to be a security issue in it's own right. Recently there were a number of exploits released for cisco equipment, among the affected equipment were the 677 and 678 consumer DSL routers of which there are millions in use. I have one such router, the DSL circuit is provided by Alltel and I workforthe ISP who provides the actual internet access. So upon reading recent warning notice sent to the security email listsaboutthe exploits being publicly available I went and read http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/CBOS-DoS.shtml which pretty much says any router running a version of CBOS prior to 2.4.5 (actually you need2.4.6because of later exploits) is vulnerable. So like a good netizen I contacted cisco TAC via telephone, gave them my678serial number and they informed me that they could not provide thesecurityupdate because my router is registered to alltel (alltel did provide the router when I ordered the DSL circuit), please call Alltel to get it. Ok so then I called Alltel, who told me no problem we can email you the updateandasked for my email address. Except since Alltel is not the ISP I don'thavean alltel email address so then they won't email it to me, please contact your ISP. I then informed Alltel that I AM MY ISP to which they repliedtheystill could not provide the patch and that I would have to get it from Cisco. So then I call Cisco TAC again, this time I explain the full details ofallI've just been thru and the tech decides to ask someone. Comes back andsaysif I register on the cisco website that he can open a ticket and getsomeoneto call me back on it. (I'm presently waiting for that call) In the mean time I decided to google for it and low and behold I found2.4.6on a website (url not posted to protect the life saving individuals whoputit on the web). Now of course I've no way to know if this version I just found is safe or not but HELLO CISCO??? If you are going to issue security alerts that require ISP's and consumers to patch their hardware devices then you had better damn well make surethatfolks can actually GET THE PATCHES. It would require no effort at all to post a bogus version full of back doors and whatnot on the web and after seeing the nightmare it is to obtain the patch thru official channels it's clear to me that this would be a very popular download. Geo._______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
-- ---- ---- ---- Michael Reilly michaelr () cisco com Cisco Systems, Santa Cruz, CA _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- new internet explorer exploit (was new worm) Jelmer (Mar 29)
- Addressing Cisco Security Issues Geo. (Mar 29)
- Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Jason Dodson (Mar 29)
- Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Micheal Patterson (Mar 29)
- Re: Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Exibar (Mar 29)
- RE: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Burton M. Strauss III (Mar 29)
- Re: RE: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Michael Reilly (Mar 29)
- Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Geoincidents (Mar 29)
- Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Jason Dodson (Mar 29)
- Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Clayton Kossmeyer (Mar 29)
- Re: Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Luke Norman (Mar 29)
- Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Geoincidents (Mar 29)
- RE: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Lou Zirko (Mar 29)
- Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues neal rauhauser (Mar 29)
- Addressing Cisco Security Issues Geo. (Mar 29)
- AW: new internet explorer exploit (was new worm) Ron Stiemer (Mar 29)
- Message not available
- Re: new internet explorer exploit (was new worm) Nick FitzGerald (Mar 30)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: new internet explorer exploit (was new worm) Drew Copley (Mar 29)
- Re: new internet explorer exploit (was new worm) Berend-Jan Wever (Mar 29)