RB Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:03:44 -0600 (CST)
RB From: Robert Bonomi
RB Upgrades or 'fixes' that cause a machine to run noticably _slower_ than
RB the 'down-rev' machine are a really good way to alienate customers.
Especially
RB thosw whose machines are running at nearly 100% capacity before
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:15:40 + (GMT)
From: Edward B. Dreger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making
RB Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 14:43:54 -0600 (CST)
RB From: Robert Bonomi
RB Re-coding to eliminate all 'possible' buffer overflow situations is a
*big*
RB
How do the operators/engineers explain to 'management', or whomever
asks,
the 'training issues' that always crop up when more than one vendor are
proposed? Has anyone had good luck with this arguement? (my answer is
sort
of along the lines of: Its just a router, no matter the vendor and
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 05:03:32PM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
How do the operators/engineers explain to 'management', or whomever asks,
the 'training issues' that always crop up when more than one vendor are
proposed? Has anyone had good luck with this arguement? (my answer is sort
CRAPAGANDA
Which operating system, embedded in more than 80% of enterprise IT
environments, represents one of the fastest-growing hacker targets and
potentially the most-devastating information-security vulnerability? Hint:
It ain't Windows. Cisco Systems' Internetwork Operating System now
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 06:43:35AM -0500, J. Oquendo wrote:
the center of the information security vortex. Because IOS controls the
routers that underpin most business networks as well as the Internet,
I think in general this is an argument against converged networks,
the added
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 06:43:35AM -0500, J. Oquendo wrote:
the center of the information security vortex. Because IOS
controls the
routers that underpin most business networks as well as the
Internet,
I think in general this is an argument against
converged networks,
the
On Monday 07 Nov 2005 3:42 pm, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
It's an argument for vendor diversity.
No it is an argument for code base diversity (or better software engineering).
Vendor diversity doesn't necessarily give you this, and you can get this with
one vendor.
Vendor diversity might be a
Seems everyone considering the options would be well advised to
consider how availability/reliability is actually calculated and
based on that exercise make a more educated decision as to whether
this does yield improvements at a cost that can be absorbed.
Just because you have n
At 08:52 AM 11/7/2005, you wrote:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 06:43:35AM -0500, J. Oquendo wrote:
the center of the information security vortex. Because IOS controls the
routers that underpin most business networks as well as the Internet,
I think in general this is an argument against
On Monday 07 Nov 2005 3:42 pm, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
It's an argument for vendor diversity.
No it is an argument for code base diversity (or better
software engineering).
Vendor diversity doesn't necessarily give you this, and you
can get this with
one vendor.
How so?
Convergence isn't going away because Networld Week thinks routers
are insecure (no, really?).
It's an argument for vendor diversity.
There are two ways to interpret that last statement.
1. Network operators should build their converged networks using
equipment from multiple vendors, i.e.
Robert,
All of our network is now patched for the latest Cisco advisory. We were
already running fixed code on a few routers when the advisory came
out so we knew the code was stable and moved to it on all other
boxes.
I'm not exactly in the know on this one, but the heap-overflow
On Nov 7, 2005, at 11:11 AM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
On Monday 07 Nov 2005 3:42 pm, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
It's an argument for vendor diversity.
No it is an argument for code base diversity (or better
software engineering).
Vendor diversity doesn't necessarily give you this, and you
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
Don't use proprietary protocols and insist on interoperability.
Then make them play nice together!
Good luck getting vendors to do something a-la Open Standards and
withdrawing from labeling their product better because of new and
improved *PIMP*
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
On Nov 7, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Eric Germann wrote:
Looks like vendor J is going to benefit from the issues laid out for
Vendor C.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2005/110405-juniper-cisco-hacker.html
Cisco, Juniper, or vendor X. We all
Looks like vendor J is going to benefit from the issues laid out for
Vendor C.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2005/110405-juniper-cisco-hacker.html
At 08:52 AM 11/7/2005, you wrote:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 06:43:35AM -0500, J. Oquendo wrote:
the center of the information security
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
How so? Haven't we recently seen an across the board bug in
multiple version of $vendor code?
And that's evidence of what other than nobody is willing to pay for what it
takes to get better code out of $vendor?
Code can be built better. It
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2005/110405-juniper-cisco-
hacker.html
Cisco, Juniper, or vendor X. We all benefit by having genetic
diversity in our routing/switching systems. I have been bit hard,
as many of us on this thread have been bit, by bugs in vendor
software/hardware. Support
On Nov 7, 2005, at 12:16 PM, Todd Vierling wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
How so? Haven't we recently seen an across the board bug in
multiple version of $vendor code?
And that's evidence of what other than nobody is willing to pay
for what it
takes to get better
On Nov 7, 2005, at 10:21 AM, Eric Gauthier wrote:
This latter case is what worries me since it implies
that there is a fundamental problem in IOS, the problem still
exists even after
patching, and that Cisco can't readily repair it.
I would postulate that this is a fundamental problem in
I agree... Harvard architecture anyone?
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 11:39 -0600, James Baldwin wrote:
On Nov 7, 2005, at 10:21 AM, Eric Gauthier wrote:
This latter case is what worries me since it implies
that there is a fundamental problem in IOS, the problem still
exists even after
The problem is that generally, things have to get *really* bad before
people will switch to a more secure infrastructure...it's all about
costs, and the cost of staying with a less secure platform must
substantially exceed the cost of switching before it's considered a
reasonable response. It
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 11:01:23AM -0700, Sam Crooks wrote:
I agree... Harvard architecture anyone?
Ah, yes ... split I D [instruction data] space ... in its purest
form, COMPLETELY split. Apparently named for the Aiken Mark I, but also
where Unix V6 split ID was developed [on the PDP-11/45
How do the operators/engineers explain to 'management', or whomever
asks,
the 'training issues' that always crop up when more than one vendor are
proposed? Has anyone had good luck with this arguement? (my answer is
sort
of along the lines of: Its just a router, no matter the vendor
Subject: RE: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:11:52 -0500
From: Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday 07 Nov 2005 3:42 pm, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
It's an argument for vendor diversity.
No it is an argument for code base diversity (or better
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:21:20 -0500
From: Eric Gauthier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
I'm not exactly in the know on this one, but the heap-overflow advisory
that we've seen indicates that the IOS updates Cisco put out are not patches
for this problem:
Cisco has devised
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 02:43:54PM -0600, Robert Bonomi wrote:
...
Most exploits (be it IOS or some other target) require multiple things to
occur
before the desired effect is achieved.
buffer overflow exploits. in general. involve a minimum of two things:
1) smashing memory
28 matches
Mail list logo
