Ben,
Here is the output of # dir command - It includes all the files on disk0:/ ciscoasa# dir Directory of disk0:/ 134 -rwx 16275456 08:43:56 Jul 15 2009 asa821-k8.bin 135 -rwx 11348300 10:46:44 Jul 15 2009 asdm-621.bin 136 -rwx 20480 00:00:00 Jan 01 1980 FSCK0000.REC 3 drwx 4096 00:03:28 Jan 01 2003 log 10 drwx 4096 00:03:38 Jan 01 2003 crypto_archive 11 drwx 4096 00:04:00 Jan 01 2003 coredumpinfo 138 -rwx 61440 00:00:00 Jan 01 1980 FSCK0001.REC 139 -rwx 9526560 10:43:02 Jul 15 2009 csd_3.4.1108.pkg 140 drwx 4096 10:43:02 Jul 15 2009 sdesktop 141 -rwx 2397046 10:43:04 Jul 15 2009 anyconnect-wince-ARMv4I-2.3.0254-k9.pkg 142 -rwx 2648712 10:43:04 Jul 15 2009 anyconnect-win-2.3.0254-k9.pkg 143 -rwx 4217694 10:43:06 Jul 15 2009 anyconnect-macosx-i386-2.3.0254-k9.pkg 144 -rwx 4259411 10:43:10 Jul 15 2009 anyconnect-linux-2.3.0254-k9.pkg 145 -rwx 28672 00:00:00 Jan 01 1980 FSCK0002.REC 146 -rwx 4096 00:00:00 Jan 01 1980 FSCK0003.REC 255582208 bytes total (201719808 bytes free) Thanks > Subject: Re: Cisco hardware question > From: bc-l...@beztech.net > Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 18:23:57 -0500 > To: af...@hotmail.com; nanog@nanog.org > > > 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 _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/
