nanog mailing list archives
Re: Massive stupidity (Was: Re: TCP vulnerability)
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis () kurtis pp se>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 07:42:43 +0200
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-04-20, at 23.09, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
but the massive amount of confusion, rumor, and worry which the major router vendors (Cisco and Juniper) created by essentially rediscovering the god damn spec and then telling only their major customers about so that only rumors could filter down to the rest of the industry is absolutely pathetic. If you have a support contract and were not told about this "attack" (if you could call it that) or were blatantly misinformed as many people seem to have been, you should demand to know why you didn't receive better treatment.
this was to the best of my knowledge not handled by Cisco and Juniper and also to the best of my knowledge they did not pre-warn any customer. But I might be mistaken. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQIYJ1qarNKXTPFCVEQIFVACfdbhaVD3lHDhKZvtHUd1ugUUFeToAn1Us FpSX+E9RmmezY4liEiInxYCR =hEOv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Current thread:
- Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think, (continued)
- Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Todd Vierling (Apr 23)
- Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Priscilla Oppenheimer (Apr 26)
- Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 27)
- Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Priscilla Oppenheimer (Apr 27)
- Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Simon Leinen (Apr 28)
- Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Todd Vierling (Apr 21)
- Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability - easier than you think Pete Kruckenberg (Apr 21)
- Vendor TCP oops-es (was Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability) Todd Vierling (Apr 21)
- Re: Vendor TCP oops-es (was Re: TCP/BGP vulnerability) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 21)
- Re: Massive stupidity (Was: Re: TCP vulnerability) Alexei Roudnev (Apr 22)