[c-nsp] Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco WebEx Browser Extension Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

-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

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

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

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

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 >>

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

> 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,

[c-nsp] cannot free up memory in bootflash

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

[c-nsp] EVC Support on Cisco 3900

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

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

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

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

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

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

> 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

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

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

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

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

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

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