>
> 1) I didn't make this
> 2) I cna't remmber where i got it from
> 3) please don't abuse my connection too much tonight
>
There is another thing to play when reloading boxes, above
disclaimers 1 and 2 apply.
http://www.he.iki.fi/favorites.mpeg
Pete
The workaround for transit suggests permitting only tcp, udp, icmp, gre,
esp, and ah protocols. Is this sufficient to protect the router
itself, or do you have to get hard-nosed with specific ACLs (restricting
access to all your possible interface addresses)?
Jeff
If Cisco made THIS big a deal of this to not release info to the public,
I wouldn't wait. There must be a reason. I had to push and push to get
any info and I think they finally gave up because too many people knew.
If you notice
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20030717-blocked.s
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 01:09:36 -0400, Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
http://puck.nether.net/~jared/gigflapping.mp3
Mirrored at http://www.netacc.net/~rtucker/gigflapping.mp3 ... same
disclaimers as Jared gives, but I have more bandwidth. :-) -rt (what do
you mean I need a new chassis?)
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Darrell Kristof wrote:
> > Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco IOS Interface Blocked by IPv4 Packet
> > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20030717-blocked.shtml
>
> IS anyone seeing this exploited in the wild? It'd be goo
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 07:48:24AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Darrell Kristof wrote:
>
> >
> > Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco IOS Interface Blocked by IPv4 Packet
> > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20030717-blocked.shtml
>
> IS anyone seeing this e
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Darrell Kristof wrote:
>
> Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco IOS Interface Blocked by IPv4 Packet
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20030717-blocked.shtml
IS anyone seeing this exploited in the wild? It'd be good to know if we
need to do panic upgrade or can sch
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> This wouldn't be the "My gig port's down, and now it's up again..."
> song would it? :)
Folks may remember when ISPs were responding to the SNMP vulnerability
many backbones were rebooting their routers during maintenance windows.
At the time, some pe
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
| Jared Mauch
| Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 1:10 AM
| To: Jason Lixfeld
| Cc: joshua sahala; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
| Subject: Re: Cisco IOS Vulnerability
|
|
| On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 01:02:42AM -0400
So that was the one...
On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 1:09 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 01:02:42AM -0400, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
On Wednesday, July 16, 2003, at 11:34 PM, joshua sahala wrote:
anyone have the 'scheduled maintenance" mp3 lying around? i have a
feeling i am going
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 01:02:42AM -0400, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, July 16, 2003, at 11:34 PM, joshua sahala wrote:
> >
> > >anyone have the 'scheduled maintenance" mp3 lying around? i have a
> > >feeling i am going to need it
>
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 01:02:42AM -0400, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 16, 2003, at 11:34 PM, joshua sahala wrote:
>
> >anyone have the 'scheduled maintenance" mp3 lying around? i have a
> >feeling i am going to need it
>
> This wouldn't be the "My gig port's down, and now it
Can someone with a clue at megapath.net
PLEASE fix your dns. I've been sending mail
to noc@ for the last 24 hours but all I get
are auto responder messages.
Your forward zones don't match your
reverse zones for mia.megapath.net and
74.33.69.in-addr.arpa zones.
You are causing denial of servic
On Wednesday 16 July 2003 23:18, Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 10:11:49PM -0500, Darrell Kristof wrote:
> > Cisco has posted information regarding this issue and work
> > arounds. 12.3 based code does not exhibit this problem.
> >
> > Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco IOS Interface Blo
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 10:11:49PM -0500, Darrell Kristof wrote:
>
> Cisco has posted information regarding this issue and work arounds.
> 12.3 based code does not exhibit this problem.
>
> Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco IOS Interface Blocked by IPv4 Packet
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/7
Cisco has posted information regarding this issue and work arounds.
12.3 based code does not exhibit this problem.
Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco IOS Interface Blocked by IPv4 Packet
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20030717-blocked.shtml
- Darrell
-Original Message-
Fr
For full details about the vulnerability see
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps341/products_security_advisory09186a00801a34c2.shtml
Scott C. McGrath
i have no details regarding the ios vulnerability other than what has already been
stated on-list, but the IOS matrix obtained this evening and listed at
http://www.0ptical.net/cisco.html shows what versions are affected, and what to
upgrade to resolve the mystery issue. not sure why psirt is
Title: Re: New Cisco Vulnerability
Hello All,
There seem to be rumors going around that there is
a new major Cisco vulnerability but only the major backbones are being
given fixes right now.
Something about packets malformed in a certain
manner cause the router to wedge.
Can anyne shed a
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Eric Gauthier wrote:
> Ok, fine, don't tell the rest of use what it is, how to detect it, or how
> to defend against it. We in the university space will just do nothing because
> we have nothing to put into our IDS sensors to watch for/block it out.
> Because, you know, we
> > This might explain the (very!) high number of maintenance alerts from
> > QWest this week, as well
> >
> Sprint, L3 and Cogent also announced a series of emergency maintenances.
Ok, fine, don't tell the rest of use what it is, how to detect it, or how
to defend against it. We in the un
>
> > I'm hearing similar rumors, and Genuity has a "planned emergency
> > maintenance" tomorrow morning, and there's some major weirdness with
> > our AT&T feed over the past half hour.
>
>
> This might explain the (very!) high number of maintenance alerts from
> QWest this week, as well
AT & T Master Trouble Ticket is 1537072
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Jerry B. Altzman
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 4:52 PM
To: Darren Bolding
Cc: 'Drew Weaver'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Postini's network.
Darren Bolding wrote:
Darren Bolding wrote:
There appears to have been some difficulty inside ATT's network the last
few minutes. It appears to have been resolved. I don't have a
master-ticket number or such yet.
Try 201975
--D
//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman[EMAIL PROTECTED]+1 646 230 8750
Thank you for
> I'm hearing similar rumors, and Genuity has a "planned emergency
> maintenance" tomorrow morning, and there's some major weirdness with
> our AT&T feed over the past half hour.
This might explain the (very!) high number of maintenance alerts from
QWest this week, as well
---
david raistr
There is currently an AT & T OC192 down from St Louis to San
Francisco (Big Pipe: OC-192=9.952
Gbps)
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Drew WeaverSent:
Wednesday, July 16, 2003 4:29 PMTo:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: Postini's network.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, John Payne wrote:
> --On Wednesday, July 16, 2003 12:50 PM -0700 Gregory Hicks
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >> From: "Vincent J. Bono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:17:54 -0400
> >>
> >> Hello All,
> >>
> >> There seem to be rumors going around th
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 01:10:17PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
>There appears to have been some difficulty inside ATT's network the
>last few minutes. It appears to have been resolved. I don't have a
>master-ticket number or such yet.
yeah, we had a tunnel into ATT that disappe
There
appears to have been some difficulty inside ATT's network the last few
minutes. It appears to have been resolved. I don't have a
master-ticket number or such yet.
FYI.
--D
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Drew WeaverSent:
Wednesday,
--On Wednesday, July 16, 2003 12:50 PM -0700 Gregory Hicks
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "Vincent J. Bono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:17:54 -0400
Hello All,
There seem to be rumors going around that there is a new major Cisco
vulnerability but only the major backbones ar
Is anyone else having trouble reaching postini?
Tracing route to coax.net.coax.mail1.psmtp.com
[12.158.34.245]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms gateway.cmh.ee.net
[209.190.0.1]
2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms letmeout.thenap.com
[206.222.25.1]
> From: "Vincent J. Bono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:17:54 -0400
>
> Hello All,
>
> There seem to be rumors going around that there is a new major Cisco
> vulnerability but only the major backbones are being given fixes
> right now.
Not 100% true... Anyone with a Catalyst
It supposedly requires 75 packets which is the
default amount of slots
in the "process switched" input queue on an
interface. There have been
packets stuck in the input queue in previous
occasions but I suspect
this is readily exploitable remotely.
Pete
- Original Message -
Hello All,
There seem to be rumors going around that there is
a new major Cisco vulnerability but only the major backbones are being given
fixes right now.
Something about packets malformed in a certain
manner cause the router to wedge.
Can anyne shed any light on or off
list?
-vb
We're reworking our current NTP infrastructure and are looking for
public NTP stratum-1 servers (we don't currently have the resources to
run our own stratum-1 at this time) that are willing to allow one of our
stratum-2's to get and distribute time from.
We'd like to use MD5 authentication and s
Margie Arbon wrote:
Check your mail logs campers.
You're joking, right? *headache just thinking about those logs*
-Jack
36 matches
Mail list logo
