Yep, this is what I heard from the TAC person. "Also the ruleset have been updated to support the IE 8 update. The ruleset version number that this started with is 62335."
-Roberto -----Original Message----- From: Cisco Clean Access Users and Administrators [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Isabelle Graham Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 1:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: IE 8 It looks like a check for IE8 just posted. You may need to do a manual update to see it. -- Isabelle Graham Information Security American University Jim Thomas wrote: > Or maybe Cisco maintaining a listserv/blog (maybe off Cisco Learning > Network) tied into the BU where they can provide 'roadmap' info and > support. If you have to go to TAC to get details on Cisco questions that > only the BU can answer then a direct line into the BU might be > beneficial when the end result could potentially help out hundreds of > customers. I know some TAC engineers monitor this listserv and some of > the BU but since I've been on here, I've seen a lot of griping regarding > the product line. I haven't heard a lot of response from Cisco. Maybe > there is another avenue that Cisco can provide that might help. > > > > Thanks > > Jim > > > > Jim Thomas > > Area Networks, Inc. > > CCIE Security #16674 > > CCSP,CCNP,CCDP > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > Office: 650-242-8050 > > Cell: 916-342-2265 > > > > > > > > From: Cisco Clean Access Users and Administrators > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric Weakland > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 6:06 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: IE 8 > > > > > I've noticed the lack of input. I suspect Cisco has forbid their folks > from posting useful information to this list anymore. Unfortunately my > team can't get useful answers from TAC. (STILL!) > > I also am a Perfigo early adopter and no longer think Cisco is a viable > alternative in this space. I've tried for YEARS to try and get them to > see how shoe-horning this product into the router support model doesn't > work, how a product like this needs aggressive support for new > vulnerabilities and changes. I thought things were going to get better, > but it doesn't look like it. > > Cisco- if you're out there, why don't you just admit you don't care > about this product line, and EOS/L it so that we can have more traction > when asking for funds to upgrade to other products? Or state that it > isn't suited to the Higher-ed market? > > I must add that I am glad Perfigo was where it was when we started to > really need it. Getting CCA implemented across our campus was a real > win from a resource perspective - many fewer viruses. But this product > has not grown/been supported in a way that makes it viable any more, as > you put so well, Rand. > > My team likes Impulse and Juniper's solutions so far. We're going to > start looking at those soon. Perhaps we should set up another listserv > somewhere - product independent? > > Cheers, > > Eric > > Eric Weakland, CISSP, CNE > Director, Information Security > Office of Information Technology > American University > eric at american.edu > 202.885.2241 > > ______________________________________ > AU IT will never ask for your password via e-mail. > Don't share your password with anyone! > > > > "Hall, Rand" <[email protected]> > Sent by: Cisco Clean Access Users and Administrators > <[email protected]> > > 04/02/2009 08:50 AM > > Please respond to > Cisco Clean Access Users and Administrators > <[email protected]> > > To > > [email protected] > > cc > > > Subject > > Re: IE 8 > > > > > > > > > Anyone notice the recent dearth of Cisco input on this list? I find that > troubling. > > Direct quotes on the list last fall from a Cisco support person (name > omitted because he's innocent): > > "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." > > "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." > > So, this will be at least the third time in six months that Cisco's > shrugging ambivalence has made their product ineffective. > > In October, Microsoft issued a critical out-of-band patch for which > Cisco would not create checks. > > In November, Cisco botched an update which ultimately prevented access > to the aforementioned and now long-awaited out-of-band patch check. > > And now, IE8. > > The first two times I followed the prescribed advice and ran my concern > up through my account team...and heard nothing. > > Unfortunately, I think I'm going to be forced to return the favor. I'm > one of the original Perfigo people who's got the end of life software. > When the Cisco NAC RFQ line doesn't this summer ring they'll know it was > me. > > So, Bruce, how do you like Bradford? > > 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 Osborne, Bruce W. > (NS) > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:26 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: IE 8 > > Rob, > > That is correct. You have to update each OS rule. Rinse & repeat after > every "Patch Tuesday" update. > > Bruce > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert J. Rutkowski [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 6:09 PM > Subject: Re: IE 8 > > Correct me if I'm wrong please.. In order to use this manually created > check, if I don't have any other manual checks incorporated into my > hotfix rules, then I need to make copies of every hotfix rule (XP, XP > MCE, XP Tablet, Vista Basic, Vista Home Premium, etc...) and add this > check as an OR for the IE area to all of my copies, and then enable them > for the Requirement. This is the way I understood it, I could very well > be incorrect though. It seems like a lot of work just to tell it to > allow IE8. > > Also, if that's what needs to be done, then why can't Cisco simply > update their hotfix rules for everyone? It's sad that they would tell > you how to manually do a workaround, but not just do it themselves... > > Rob > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cisco Clean Access Users and Administrators > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roberto Montoya > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:06 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: IE 8 > > This is what we got on a case that we opened. > > "For now we will have to create a custom check until the next agent > version download has been released. Here is an outline for the customer > check that you can put in place: > > Check Category - Registry Check > Check Type - Registry Value > Registry Key - HLKM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ > Value Name - Version > Value Data Type - String > Operator - starts with > Value Data - 8.0 > > For now we are expecting support for IE8 within the next two weeks. > Right now there is a bug for this issue and is listed below: > Bug ID: CSCsy62611" > > > HTH, > > -Roberto > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cisco Clean Access Users and Administrators > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Terry Mitchell > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:52 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: IE 8 > > Anyone from Cisco/NAC team willing provide an estimate for IE8 support > (days, weeks or months?). It doesn't have to be carved in stone, but a > ballpark estimate would be most useful for planning and support > purposes. > > Thanks in advance. > > Terry >
