So yes then.
> no... not really, not originally, it got morphed into
> something different :( So, the ciscogate paranoia, as near as
> I saw, got down to: "cisco wont tell people about vulns as
> soon as they know about them" (or some version of I don't get
> to know fast enough about vulns from a vendor, while we
> currently bash on cisco)
>
> With that in mind, the example 2500 above is a cisco box,
> running old code because it can't be upgraded to current
> code. Cisco is reluctant to tell folks in public about
> vulnerabilities without there beig fixes for the problem in
> as much running code as possible.
>
> -Chris
>
