nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cisco and the tobacco industry
From: Florian Weimer <fw () deneb enyo de>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 20:49:20 +0200
* J. Oquendo:
Maybe it is time an authority figure steps in and makes some form of rules for vendors to distribute fixes under some form of law. If this flaw of Cisco's could lead to the kind of severe damage as Mr. Lynn claims, shouldn't it fall on the shoulders of Cisco to get their act together and provide a fix as opposed to sending in the hounds (legal shmoes via lawsuit) to quash their problems.
But it looks as if Cisco actually did this, and you (and Geo) just weren't part of the elite circle of operators whose networks are considered U.S. national critical infrastructure.
Current thread:
- Re: Cisco and the tobacco industry, (continued)
- Re: Cisco and the tobacco industry Brad Knowles (Jul 30)
- Re: Cisco and the tobacco industry Jeffrey I. Schiller (Jul 30)
- Re: Cisco and the tobacco industry Tony Li (Jul 30)
- Re: Cisco and the tobacco industry Jeffrey I. Schiller (Jul 30)
- Re: Cisco and the tobacco industry Ivan Groenewald (Jul 30)
- Re: Cisco and the tobacco industry Jeffrey I. Schiller (Jul 30)
- Re: Cisco and the tobacco industry Geo. (Jul 31)
- RE: Cisco and the tobacco industry Christopher X. Candreva (Jul 28)
- RE: Cisco and the tobacco industry Christopher L. Morrow (Jul 28)
- Re: Cisco and the tobacco industry Daniel Golding (Jul 28)
- Re: Cisco and the tobacco industry Dan Hollis (Jul 29)
- Re: Cisco and the tobacco industry Ivan Groenewald (Jul 30)
- RE: Cisco and the tobacco industry C. Jon Larsen (Jul 30)
- Re: Cisco and the tobacco industry Hyunseog Ryu (Jul 30)
- Re: Cisco and the tobacco industry Petri Helenius (Jul 31)