Ciaron Gogarty wrote:
> 
> It was only particular to Dot1q trunks as well... as far as I
> can remember
> it wasn't an issue on isl trunked ports.

The testing that revealed the problem was done on Dot1q VLANs. It's possible
it could have been a problem on ISL too and that just wasn't tested. It's
probably not a problem anymore, either way.

Priscilla


> 
> is that correct??
> 
> rgds,
> 
> Ciaron
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 11:34 PM
> Subject: Re: RE: Cat2950 VLAN 1 ip address...can't connect
> [7:50331]
> 
> 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > AT Cisco Networkers i went to the layer 2 security breakout
> > > session and they talked about this. 1st they said the
> article
> > > is out dated. When the article was written Cisco already
> had a
> > > fix for this.
> >
> > That was what I figured, Mr. Bond. (nice address! ;-)
> >
> > A fix would be pretty easy. The vulnerability required a host
> on an access
> > port to send a frame with a VLAN tag already in it. That
> could easily be
> > disallowed. (The switch itself should add any tags when
> sending across a
> > trunk link. Or, a server on a trunk link could include a tag,
> but a host
> on
> > an ordinary access port shouldn't include a tag in its frame.)
> >
> > I don't know if this is what the original poster had in mind,
> but I bet it
> > is. The story got blown out of proportion and will probably
> never die.
> >
> > Priscilla
> >
> > > 2nd they said with the current switch IOS and
> > > additional features they could not hop any VLANS. They tried
> > > everything and where not successful. the whole purpose of
> the
> > > breakout was to defuse the myths out there about how
> unsecure
> > > VLANs are. With all that said they did say they do not
> > > recommend using one switch with VLANS for web, dmz, and
> > > internal traffic
> > > >
> > > > From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
> > > > Date: 2002/08/01 Thu PM 03:40:39 EDT
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: RE: Cat2950 VLAN 1 ip address...can't connect
> > > [7:50331]
> > > >
> > > > Turpin, Mark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm referring to trunks, sorry.
> > > >
> > > > There were some vulnerabilities related to this, but
> actually
> > > the fix was to
> > > > make sure the native VLAN wasn't trunked, if I understand
> it
> > > correctly....
> > > > Although the vulnerabilities caused a big stir, they were
> > > hard to exploit.
> > > > They required physical access to the switch, a Sniffer,
> and
> > > traffic
> > > > generation capabilities. Also, Cisco may have made some
> > > changes to avoid the
> > > > problem after it got reported. But here's the info from
> SANS:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.sans.org/newlook/resources/IDFAQ/vlan.htm
> > > >
> > > > Priscilla
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 12:14 PM
> > > > > To: Turpin, Mark
> > > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Subject: Re: Cat2950 VLAN 1 ip address...can't connect
> > > [7:50331]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >   Not sure what you mean.  Your not changing the default
> > > VLAN,
> > > > > VLAN 1
> > > > > will remain, can't delete it, (not talking about
> trunks).  I
> > > > > know of no
> > > > > problems arising when using a VLAN other than 1 for
> inband
> > > > > connectivity.
> > > > >
> > > > >   Dave
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  "The information transmitted is intended only for the
> > > person
> > > > > or entity to
> > > > > which it is addressed and may contain confidential
> and/or
> > > > > privileged
> > > > > material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or
> other
> > > > > use of, or
> > > > > taking of any action in reliance upon, this information
> by
> > > > > persons or
> > > > > entities other than the intended recipient is
> prohibited. If
> > > > > you received
> > > > > this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> > > > > material from all
> > > > > computers."
> 
> 




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50486&t=50331
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to