Re: Cisco, haven't we learned anything? (technician reset)

[Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org>]

> This reminds me of Ciscogate but not for obvious reasons. That was a bad
> event for everybody involved.
> It reminds me of the very issue Mike Lynn discussed:
> Remote exploitation for Cisco is possible, while so far Cisco disclosed
> all these problems as DoS vulnerabilities.
> I am not saying Cisco did that on purpose, but in THIS case they CAN set
> my mind at ease.
>
> Why don?t they?

I did not change my mind, but to be fair, I have to add:

After writing this I’ve been made aware that this product was from a 
company Cisco bought not so long ago. This very same issue happened 
before (and more than once)... in one recent example with another 
company Cisco bought named Riverhead.

It is true Cisco's PSIRT is one of the best to work with among vendors, 
even Mike Lynn said that Cisco PSIRT are some of the more decent people 
he worked with - "I've never had a problem with PSIRT".

It is also true that Cisco can't find out about these until after they 
buy the companies, still, Cisco f*cked up, more than just once or twice, 
and we call it. This kind of a so-called "vulnerability" should not 
happen, or be disclosed, continually, in this particular fashion.

Checking into new investments security-wise, especially with security 
products and external QA may help solve such issues in the future.

        Gadi.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.