Well, I think it was just blind fear talking.
Properly configured, it is less a security issue than newer devices. Pretty impressive from Matthew to have the patience/skills to not simply "reload" that fridge over the years. On 09/20/14 16:25, Keith Medcalf wrote: > And what, exactly, is it vulnerable to? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Sterling >> Sent: Saturday, 20 September, 2014 12:06 >> To: Bacon Zombie >> Cc: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Re: Saying goodnight to my GSR >> >> Again, you're focusing resentment towards someone who did the right >> thing. Negative reinforcement will discourage others from taking >> action and will discourage them from encouraging others to take >> action. >> >> Let's focus on who still has vulnerable equipment and how to help >> them. Let's not shame people who did the right thing >> >> Thanks, >> Dan >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Bacon Zombie <baconzom...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> OK thank you for decommissioning this.* >>> >>> * Only if you either had authority to do so for max 1 year or had no >>> authority but were fighting to have it patches or replaced for years. >>> On Sep 20, 2014 7:54 PM, "Daniel Sterling" <sterling.dan...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Bacon Zombie <baconzom...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> So when was the last time you patched this internet facing device? >>>> Isn't the better response, thank you for decommissioning it? >>>> >>>> Can someone from cisco set up a poll or release whatever numbers they >>>> have about how many of these old devices are still in service? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Dan >>>> > > >