On Mar 4, 2010, at 6:16 PM, Kaveh . wrote: > > Thanks for the feedback. Let me clarify a few things regarding issues that > this thread has addressed so far: > > A) Pre-existing configs: What Tim and Joe mentioned is apparently correct. I > was on phone with a few Cisco tech-reps earlier today and they told me that > since version 8.2, they have been shipping ASAs with a default configuration, > which explains the existence of private IP addresses on the inside interface, > etc ... . > > B) What Cisco reps could NOT explain was the existence of a number of > FSCK000#.REC files on these appliances. To be more specific each of ASAs in > question contains 4 extra files: FSCK0000.REC, FSCK0001.REC, FSCK0002.REC, > FSCK0003.REC). I said 'extra' because I asked the Cisco reps on phone to > provide me a complete list of files that should exist on a brand new ASA, and > the 4 files above were not part of the list and I think even they got > confused when I mentioned the existence of these files. > > I could not find much info on these files, but a simple Google search > indicates that these files may be 'recovery files' of Disks operating under > Unix/Linux/BSD/etc /... kernel, indicating a dying hard drive. That would be > enough to freak me out! Anyone can confirm this? > > C) SmarNet issue: I am a little confused on this. Since this purchase was for > NEW equipment, and the devices were shipped by Cisco (at least that is what I > read on the box; a Cisco warehouse in TX), then my understanding is that the > devices came with the first 12 months of Smarnet anyway. So I will be > surprised if they decline the contract renewal after the first year. After > all they sold us the appliances as if they were new. How can decline renewal > if I can prove that I paid them for new? > > D) Reseller: Yes, I appreciate the input. I will stick with a bigger name > like CDW, next time, but again it appears to me that the devices were shipped > from a Cisco warehouse in Texas, and not from the reseller's location. > > > > I would greatly appreciate any input, especially on B) > > > > Thank you > > > > Best regards > > > >> Subject: RE: Cisco hardware question >> Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:27:04 -0800 >> From: madc...@hisna.com >> To: ken.gilm...@gmail.com >> CC: nanog@nanog.org >> >> According to previous conversations with my Cisco rep the answer is no - >> Cisco won't support it. I'm blind copying him on this and will pass on his >> response. >> >> Thanks, >> Matt >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Ken Gilmour [mailto:ken.gilm...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Thu 3/4/2010 4:17 PM >> To: Adcock, Matt [HISNA] >> Cc: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Re: Cisco hardware question >> >> >> So if one were to purchase equipment, which is explicitly sold as >> "Refurbished" from, say www.impulsetech.us and they were to offer Smartnet >> on it, there is no guarantee that even if you paid for it, that Cisco would >> fulfil their support contract? >> >> Regards, >> >> Ken >> >> >> On 4 March 2010 15:22, Adcock, Matt [HISNA] <madc...@hisna.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Don't deploy the equipment, demand a refund, and report the reseller to >> Cisco. I agree completely with Brian - find a good Cisco partner and stick >> with them. Also, you can't legally buy used Cisco equipment and use the >> operating system. You can buy the equipment but the OS is absolutely >> non-transferrable. If you try to get SMARTNet on it red flags will go up and >> Cisco won't support it. >> >> Thanks, >> Matt >> >> >> >> Matt Adcock, Manager >> 334-481-6629 (w) / 334-312-5393 (m) / madc...@hisna.com >> 700 Hyundai Blvd. / Montgomery, AL 36105 >> >> P >> The average office worker uses 10,000 sheets of paper = 1.2 trees, per year >> By not printing this email, you've saved paper, ink and millions of trees >> >> >> >> From: Brian Feeny [mailto:bfe...@mac.com] >> Sent: Thu 3/4/2010 3:05 PM >> To: Kaveh . >> Cc: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Re: Cisco hardware question >> >> >> >> >> >> If you are getting Cisco hardware with configs on it or crashfiles, etc. >> Then no it is NOT new equipment. Who are you buying from? Are they a Gold >> partner on Cisco's partner locator? If not, then I have seen some seedy >> things, and of course i have seen seedy things with Gold partners too, I am >> just pointing out that the ability to compete and make margin get more and >> more difficult the lower the partner is on the totem pole and so desperation >> can drive certain behavior. >> >> In general from a cisco Gold partner you can expect as good as 35-40% or so >> on new equipment for a discount for regular deals. Special pricing for >> special projects you may be able to get a bit better, and maybe 1% or so >> better for general products from CDW or a big box company like them. If you >> are paying 50-60% off list for just individual items you order, then its >> likely not new and there is likely something shady going on, as no partner >> is going to get you some special discount pricing on a single 3845 for >> example. >> >> All of your good gold partners are going to charge around the same give or >> take a few percent on material. So find someone you can trust and just build >> a relationship. If your paying new prices for used gear then yes you are >> getting ripped off. >> >> I would be glad to recommend to you a reputable gold partner if you email me >> off list. >> >> >> Brian >> >> >> On Mar 4, 2010, at 3:48 PM, Kaveh . wrote: >> >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I apologize if this is an unusual topic but I would like to know what this >>> expert community thinks about this issue: >>> >>> We have noticed that a number of Cisco appliances we have recently >>> purchased and paid (AS NEW), are being shipped as if they have been already >>> used/refurbished. In other words, several times we have seen brand new >>> Cisco hardware, out of the box, that has pre-existing configuration >>> (Interfaces with Private IP addresses, static routes, etc ...) and in some >>> cases even non-system files, like 'crashdump.txt' or additional IOS images. >>> Most importantly our latest purchase; 2 'new' ASAs, contain a series of >>> files named: FSCK0000.REC, FSCK0001.REC, FSCK0002.REC, etc ... . Based on >>> some research it seems like that these files are 'recovery files' signaling >>> bad/failing hard disks in these appliances. >>> Anyone on thhis group has seen this before and if yes, are we supposed to >>> blindly trust the vendor saying the hardware is new, safe and secure? >>> >>> The only way I can explain this is that the hardware has been refurbished >>> or previously configured for reasons unknown to me. I think if customers >>> pays for new hardware, they should get new hardware, even if refurbished >>> hardware may be covered by Smartnet. >>> >>> Any thoughts or recommendations anyone? The last thing we want to do is to >>> deploy faulty (or non secure) security appliances in production. :) >>> >>> Thank you >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> >> >> >> The information in this email and any attachments are for the sole use of >> the intended recipient and may contain privileged and confidential >> information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, >> copying or distribution of this message or attachment is strictly >> prohibited. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting >> software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on >> any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or >> damage caused by software viruses. If you believe that you have received >> this email in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the >> email and all of its attachments >> >> >>> Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. >>> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469230/direct/01/
Kaveh: I can confirm with absolute certainty that fcsk is a Unix utility for determining if a hard disk is failing and optionally attempting a recovery. I have never heard of such output files, though. How big are they? If they are tiny, they could just be status reports or a save of the program's output. If they are large, they may represent backups of the flash memory. Ben
