Patching for Cisco vulnerability

Fri Jul 18 19:31:25 UTC 2003

On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 09:21:28PM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 03:04:45PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > 	most providers can easily go from (for example)
> > 12.0(21)S3 to 12.0(21)S7 with less testing than from 12.0(21)S to 12.0(25)S
> 
> 12.0(21)S* (at least S5 and above) have broken SNMP interface counters
> and Cisco refuses to fix the bug in 12.0(21)S*, so people who don't

	Do you have a DDTS I can reference?

> want to lose money (accounting) are forced to upgrade to 12.0(25)S*.
> I guess they want to force all "conservative" ISPs to jump over
> the 12.0(22)S "barrier".

	I agree that Cisco should actually take more serious ownership
of these issues within a customers network.  They're selling us
these software/hw and claiming that we can obtain a particular SLA
level.  Yet they can't seem to add in some code that says

	if  (ifc->in_bps > ifc->phy_speed || ifc->out_bps > ifc->phy_speed)
	{
		crash_router();
	}

	If they added this code, they'd find these bugs in their
labs instead of in our networks.

	- jared


-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared at puck.nether.net
clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.