full-disclosure - Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4068B230.1000106@normanonline.co.uk>
From: luke at normanonline.co.uk (Luke Norman)
Subject: Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues

Whilst I can see your point, when you have an exploit for which there is
a widely-published vulnerability publicly available, would it not be
easier to simply offer the software to those who want it. I know that if
the next time an apache vuln came out, I had to contact someone at
apache to get them to give me the update so that I could stop my server
being vulnerable, I wouldn't be very happy. If there are publicly
available exploits, there should be publicly available patches.
Luke

Clayton Kossmeyer wrote:

>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.
>
>  
>