> And what, exactly, is it vulnerable to? Most of these, I'd imagine: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/12_0s/release/ntes/120SCAVS.html
On 20 September 2014 14:25, Keith Medcalf <kmedc...@dessus.com> wrote: > > And what, exactly, is it vulnerable to? > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Sterling > >Sent: Saturday, 20 September, 2014 12:06 > >To: Bacon Zombie > >Cc: nanog@nanog.org > >Subject: Re: Saying goodnight to my GSR > > > >Again, you're focusing resentment towards someone who did the right > >thing. Negative reinforcement will discourage others from taking > >action and will discourage them from encouraging others to take > >action. > > > >Let's focus on who still has vulnerable equipment and how to help > >them. Let's not shame people who did the right thing > > > >Thanks, > >Dan > > > > > >On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Bacon Zombie <baconzom...@gmail.com> > >wrote: > >> OK thank you for decommissioning this.* > >> > >> * Only if you either had authority to do so for max 1 year or had no > >> authority but were fighting to have it patches or replaced for years. > >> On Sep 20, 2014 7:54 PM, "Daniel Sterling" <sterling.dan...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Bacon Zombie <baconzom...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > So when was the last time you patched this internet facing device? > >>> > >>> Isn't the better response, thank you for decommissioning it? > >>> > >>> Can someone from cisco set up a poll or release whatever numbers they > >>> have about how many of these old devices are still in service? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Dan > >>> > > > >
