During the product's most significant test since being purchased from Perfigo, Cisco is sitting on its hands and telling its customers to fend for themselves.
Not confidence-inspiring. As a big Cisco flag-waver, I'm actually a little speechless. Cheers, Rand -- Rand P. Hall * Director, Network Services Merrimack College * SunGard Higher Education 315 Turnpike Street, North Andover MA 01845 * Tel 978-837-5000 Fax 978-837-5383 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * www.sungardhe.com CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system. -----Original Message----- From: Cisco Clean Access Users and Administrators [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nathaniel Austin Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:33 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Microsoft Patch Bruce, All I can say is that myself and some of my colleagues did put some pressure on to add this in. I know we sound like a broken record when we say this, but I would strongly encourage anyone who is unhappy about this to tell their account teams and have them put pressure on from their side as well. Nate Osborne, Bruce W. (NS) wrote: > Nate, > > When was this change communicated to Cisco's Clean Access customers?? > > It appears to me that the BU does not want this product to succeed. > > Bruce Osborne > Liberty University > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cisco Clean Access Users and Administrators [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Nathaniel Austin > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 9:45 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [CLEANACCESS] Microsoft Patch > > Hey Mike, > > Word from the BU is that they will only update from Microsoft once a > month, so this one will not go into the checks and rule set until next > months Patch Tuesday release. > > So a preemptive apology to everyone out there who wants this now. I > think there are some good custom checks that some of you have created to > at least get it checked for in your environments in the meantime. > > I know this isn't really a consolation, but I think this again proves > that the WSUS style requirement that checks against Microsoft's WU > servers instead of our checks and rules is a much better option. > > Nate > > Mike Diggins wrote: > >> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Osborne, Bruce W. (NS) wrote: >> >> >>> When I last checked this afternoon, Cisco still did not have their >>> check published. What happened to the commitment to publish within 48 >>> hours of patch release?? >>> >> I was wondering that myself. I checked a few times today to see if it >> had been published. I normally only update my CCA servers once a >> month, so as not to annoy my clients too much, but this one seems like >> it needs special attention. >> >> -Mike >>
