nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cisco vulnerability on smaller catalyst switches
From: Haesu <haesu () towardex com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 20:18:26 -0400
I tested Catalyst 2924-XL-EN with 12.0(5)WC5a and I found that without L3 capability it does not seem to be affected. But with L3 connectivity, if you direct the attack at the VLAN1 interface it is definitely susceptible.
I believe directing the attack to VLAN1 should just kill the remote managmeent and won't effect switching capability. Can anyone confirm? -hc -- Sincerely, Haesu C. TowardEX Technologies, Inc. WWW: http://www.towardex.com E-mail: haesu () towardex com Cell: (978) 394-2867
I've tested 12.0(5)WC8 and it has the fix. --steve
Current thread:
- Cisco vulnerability on smaller catalyst switches Chris Griffin (Jul 18)
- Re: Cisco vulnerability on smaller catalyst switches Petri Helenius (Jul 18)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Cisco vulnerability on smaller catalyst switches McBurnett, Jim (Jul 18)
- RE: Cisco vulnerability on smaller catalyst switches Steve Rude (Jul 18)
- Re: Cisco vulnerability on smaller catalyst switches Haesu (Jul 18)
- RE: Cisco vulnerability on smaller catalyst switches Steve Rude (Jul 18)