nanog mailing list archives
Re: CISCO 0-day exploits
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:04:49 +0200
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 09:09, Ahmed Borno <amaged () gmail com> wrote:
So yeah iACLs, CoPP and all sorts of basic precautions are needed, but I'm thinking something more needs to be done, specially if these ancient code stacks are being imported into new age 'IoT' devices, multiplying the attack vector by a factor of too many.
I can't see situation getting better. Why should vendor invest in high quality code, certainly the cultural shift will cost something, it's not 0 cost and what is the upside? If IOS and JunOS realistically were significantly less buggy many of us would stop buying support, because we either know how to configure these or can get help faster free from the community, we largely need the support because the software quality is so bad _everyone_ finds new bugs all the time and we don't have the source code to fix it as a community. So I suspect significantly better quality software would at least initially cost more to produce and it would reduce revenue in loss of support. I also think the way we develop needs to be fundamentally rethought, we need to stop believing I am the person who can code working C, it's the other people who are incompetent. At some point we should look, are the tools we using the right tools? Can we move complexity from human to computers at compile time to create more guarantees of correctness? MSFT claims 70% of their bugs are memory safety, issue which could be solved almost perfectly programmatically by making the compiler and language smarter, not the person more resistant to mistakes. I think ANET at least for some part essentially writes their own DSL which compiles to C++, I think solution like this for any large long-lived project probably quickly pays dividends in quality, because you can address lot of the systematic errors during the compilation time and in DSL design. -- ++ytti
Current thread:
- CISCO 0-day exploits Jean | ddostest.me via NANOG (Feb 07)
- Re: CISCO 0-day exploits Jean | ddostest.me via NANOG (Feb 10)
- Re: CISCO 0-day exploits tim () pelican org (Feb 10)
- Re: CISCO 0-day exploits Saku Ytti (Feb 10)
- Re: CISCO 0-day exploits Jean | ddostest.me via NANOG (Feb 10)
- Re: CISCO 0-day exploits Tom Hill (Feb 10)
- Re: CISCO 0-day exploits Ahmed Borno (Feb 10)
- Re: CISCO 0-day exploits Saku Ytti (Feb 11)
- Re: CISCO 0-day exploits Harlan Stenn (Feb 11)
- Re: CISCO 0-day exploits Ahmed Borno (Feb 11)
- Re: CISCO 0-day exploits Saku Ytti (Feb 11)
- Re: CISCO 0-day exploits Ahmed Borno (Feb 11)
- Re: CISCO 0-day exploits sronan (Feb 11)
- Re: CISCO 0-day exploits Jean | ddostest.me via NANOG (Feb 10)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: CISCO 0-day exploits Scott Weeks (Feb 10)
- Re: CISCO 0-day exploits Justin Wilson (Feb 10)
- Re: CISCO 0-day exploits Tom Hill (Feb 10)