Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues
From: Clayton Kossmeyer <ckossmey () cisco com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:00:37 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello - I can appreciate your frustration with not being able to download fixed software for your 678. As you've discovered, the Cisco TAC doesn't normally directly support DSL modems that were provided by an ISP. The TAC process for this is to direct customers to their ISP for downloads. The reasons for this are many, but one of the major ones is that SPs/ISPs want to control what versions of software are deployed within their networks. Having said that, there is an exception and escalation process for situations like yours. If you've attempted to contact your reseller/ISP and have been unsuccessful -- as in this case -- the TAC can and should open a TAC case for you. At this point, you should be provided a TAC case number. Cisco TAC cases are assigned priority levels that correspond to the severity and urgency of the problem. The priority level also determines the amount of time in which you can expect a response from a TAC engineer. When you contact TAC, work with them to set the correct priority level for your issue. Also, make sure to ask when you can expect a response so everyone's expectations are set up front. If you feel as though your case is not being addressed urgently enough, you can call the TAC at any time, referencing your case number, to have the priority raised or the case escalated further. In the future, if you believe you've run into a Cisco security related issue, you can contact psirt () cisco com or security-alert () cisco com. If needed, you can find additional ways to contact TAC here: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/687/Directory/DirTAC.shtml I'll follow up with you unicast and we can figure out which image you'll need. Clay - -- Clay Seaman-Kossmeyer - Cisco PSIRT - -------------------------------------- http://www.cisco.com/go/psirt On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:02:25PM -0500, Geo. wrote:
I have to post this because I consider this to be a security issue in it's own right.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (SunOS) iD8DBQFAaKpUEHa/Ybuq8nARAvI/AKCuC2ri1bltt8QgjzdDr9c5x+TMsgCfdfws I0cTaCGL1Q9BW9Y+I+0MJLE= =gbkK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- new internet explorer exploit (was new worm) Jelmer (Mar 29)
- Addressing Cisco Security Issues Geo. (Mar 29)
- Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Jason Dodson (Mar 29)
- Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Micheal Patterson (Mar 29)
- Re: Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Exibar (Mar 29)
- RE: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Burton M. Strauss III (Mar 29)
- Re: RE: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Michael Reilly (Mar 29)
- Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Geoincidents (Mar 29)
- Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Jason Dodson (Mar 29)
- Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Clayton Kossmeyer (Mar 29)
- Re: Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Luke Norman (Mar 29)
- Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Geoincidents (Mar 29)
- RE: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Lou Zirko (Mar 29)
- Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues neal rauhauser (Mar 29)
- Addressing Cisco Security Issues Geo. (Mar 29)
- AW: new internet explorer exploit (was new worm) Ron Stiemer (Mar 29)
- Message not available
- Re: new internet explorer exploit (was new worm) Nick FitzGerald (Mar 30)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: new internet explorer exploit (was new worm) Drew Copley (Mar 29)
- Re: new internet explorer exploit (was new worm) Berend-Jan Wever (Mar 29)
- Re: RE: new internet explorer exploit (was new worm) Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 29)
- RE: [inbox] Re: RE: new internet explorer exploit (was new worm) Exibar (Mar 29)