-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco WebEx Browser Extension Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20170124-webex
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2017 January 22 18:30 UTC (GMT)
Last Updated 2017 January 24 18:30 UTC (GMT
On 1/24/17, James Bensley wrote:
> On 24 January 2017 at 10:04, wrote:
>>> Simon Lockhart
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:09 AM
>>>
>>> On Tue Jan 24, 2017 at 09:02:18AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:33:08PM -0500, Charles Sprickman via
>> cisco-nsp
>>> wrote:
On 24 January 2017 at 12:46, wrote:
>> James Bensley
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 11:15 AM
>>
>> On 23 January 2017 at 17:16, Rick Martin wrote:
>> >
>>
>> It’s fucking expensive to have fully loaded ASR9000 chassis just sitting
>> around
>> in a cupboard ready to go.
>
> That's what lab
> James Bensley
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 11:15 AM
>
> On 23 January 2017 at 17:16, Rick Martin wrote:
> >
>
> It’s fucking expensive to have fully loaded ASR9000 chassis just sitting
> around
> in a cupboard ready to go.
That's what lab equipment is for, although what are the chances
Hi all,
I have a ASR1004 bugs running ios version 15.5.
I have 0 bytes in my bootflash. I've deleted several files but the bytes
are not being free'd.
I tried the following:
1. squeeze bootflash: but the command is not recogonised
2. delete /force bootflash: but does not help
3. rebooted the route
Hello everyone,
Does anyone uses EVC on Cisco 3900?
It seems, based on Cisco documentation -
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/access/1900/software/configuration/guide/Software_Configuration/evcBD.html
- EVC's supported on G2 (3900 in particular), but - nowhere I can find the
minimum v
On 24 January 2017 at 10:04, wrote:
>> Simon Lockhart
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:09 AM
>>
>> On Tue Jan 24, 2017 at 09:02:18AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:33:08PM -0500, Charles Sprickman via
> cisco-nsp
>> wrote:
>> > > I have to say, I haven???t been imp
On 23 January 2017 at 17:16, Rick Martin wrote:
>
> I am under pressure to consider third party maintenance providers for our
> significant Cisco inventory, and I am quite leery of such an arrangement. I
> suppose third party maintenance may be OK for products that we have plenty of
> spare in
> Simon Lockhart
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:09 AM
>
> On Tue Jan 24, 2017 at 09:02:18AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:33:08PM -0500, Charles Sprickman via
cisco-nsp
> wrote:
> > > I have to say, I haven???t been impressed with their support in a
> > > long time
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 08:08:43AM +, Simon Lockhart wrote:
> Yes, really, they want us to pay them more money to find
> out how buggy their code releases are...
When I was young and naive, too many years ago, I wondered why I would have
to pay Vendors to be able to report their bugs to
On Tue Jan 24, 2017 at 09:02:18AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:33:08PM -0500, Charles Sprickman via cisco-nsp
> wrote:
> > I have to say, I haven???t been impressed with their support in a long
> > time. We have smartnet really just for hardware, and recently I figured
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:33:08PM -0500, Charles Sprickman via cisco-nsp wrote:
> I have to say, I haven???t been impressed with their support in a long
> time. We have smartnet really just for hardware, and recently I figured
> that since we have support, I???d actually try and offload a ta
12 matches
Mail list logo
