March 2014 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco IOS Software SSL VPN Denial of Service Vulnerability
by Larry Sheldon 28 Mar '14

28 Mar '14

On 3/27/2014 11:57 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > Alexander Neilson <alexander(a)neilson.net.nz> wrote: >> I wonder if they should be invited to only post a single message with >> the titles and links to the alerts so that people can follow it up. > > i would prefer that the header be in blue, the titles in green, and the > urls in magenta, in comic sans, of course I prefer flat ASCII text. That will shut most of them up. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

1 0

Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco IOS Software SSL VPN Denial of Service Vulnerability
by Cisco Systems Product Security Incident Response Team 27 Mar '14

27 Mar '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Cisco IOS Software SSL VPN Denial of Service Vulnerability Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20140326-ios-sslvpn Revision 1.0 For Public Release 2014 March 26 16:00 UTC (GMT) Summary ======= A vulnerability in the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) VPN subsystem of Cisco IOS Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) condition. The vulnerability is due to a failure to process certain types of HTTP requests. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker could submit crafted requests designed to consume memory to an affected device. An exploit could allow the attacker to consume and fragment memory on the affected device. This may cause reduced performance, a failure of certain processes, or a restart of the affected device. Cisco has released free software updates that address this vulnerability. There are no workarounds to mitigate this vulnerability. This advisory is available at the following link: http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-… Note: The March 26, 2014, Cisco IOS Software Security Advisory bundled publication includes six Cisco Security Advisories. All advisories address vulnerabilities in Cisco IOS Software. Each Cisco IOS Software Security Advisory lists the Cisco IOS Software releases that correct the vulnerability or vulnerabilities detailed in the advisory as well as the Cisco IOS Software releases that correct all Cisco IOS Software vulnerabilities in the March 2014 bundled publication. Individual publication links are in Cisco Event Response: Semiannual Cisco IOS Software Security Advisory Bundled Publication at the following link: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/security/intelligence/Cisco_ERP_mar14.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTMeUtAAoJEIpI1I6i1Mx3BJ4P/Aytcbvaue49DkNDq0G+3C8+ mv2W8/1HeqSvrmbc8QUJrelPA1kfYXGSf+7VX9lpwTdKKPrMPpkso1WXA7tK2t5i uiaqy8+KON/V3uFTjLhSBxZsMmSYws/uO8rV9oY7NLGfv2cwGztEbrKwz9g5Hsfc X3TlEgPaX73a/xb92eP//+e31ZNCPw6NRKmUfi6v7YG38WNghT7lqtI7GVlHiAkd atAqZ8NOyn7V+lHNjdOpAzFplo6R+GZCBfAFkEYuEU3dAAccMQbkaq6XgZAigycn dko3EWzfa+I/4RHDrRIa/XAY6Ogrnp/jmaTm4sGF2aqQOASH7X/oDU4X6KnD6ixo RicU1XeEsxgh5/FOf0wWo53BTcf/1nx34LkazZ6k6+jh8193IRWGb9J90E7S+/M8 2jbB8kwxuroH1qQ73jqguiuTC0eemPn2k5MS01ZAfcIEJPcA4OyTkuA/3tiISeYQ 0GesrJ3m7WOovFNSIq8v4WaTMcvZO9vHLZ/6BMcd4a+1uPnzPeR9rfI8JA2VA8Wd EAjbKdWA/kPxbVop2ajRjYTl7uMN6/g9SFP/eBjWpAFLnUfE6n1b24cn9v26OQpB ZxuMKA6eaeoT88KlouxudQcAgtpZZFzp4/ghWCy8q82WhHg4uDqw3R243rRxaBa7 RF3x0wYuErbbC7N9m1UH =1Ixo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

9 9

Link Layer Filtering not supported on popular equipment?
by hasser css 27 Mar '14

27 Mar '14

Is there any common equipment that doesn't support this kind of filtering? I have no access to the switches where I work (I am just a CS agent at a smaller service provider), but my boss tells me that they do not support doing this... however, I do not believe this at all. I think that all the switches are all from Dell. Issues are happening as some customers accidentally have rogue DHCP servers running from their routers being connected improperly, and his only solution to this issue is to disable the switch port instead of simply preemptively filtering out this. Any insight? Regards.

4 3

Remote Hands Spokane, WA?
by Aaron C. de Bruyn 27 Mar '14

27 Mar '14

Anyone available for remote hands (installing memory) in Spokane, WA on a Thursday during business hours? -A

2 1

Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP
by Larry Sheldon 27 Mar '14

27 Mar '14

On 3/25/2014 11:18 PM, John Levine wrote: >> 3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP connections is playing that uncomfortable game with >> ones own combat boots. And not particularly productive. > > If you can figure out how to do effective spam filtering without > looking at the IP addresses from which mail arrives, you will be in a > position to make a whole lot of money. > > But, as always, I'm not holding my breath. Is spam fighting really about SMTP? Or is it about abuse of the transport layer by (among other things) the SMTP? -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

6 6

Education Committee Update
by Siegel, David 27 Mar '14

27 Mar '14

Hi folks, I would like to provide a brief update from the NANOG Education Committee. We have filled several of the open committee positions but are still looking for more volunteers. We need a Director of Instruction and several more "Members at Large." Please contact Betty or myself if you are interested in participating in the group. My thanks go out to those who have already volunteered, as follows: Vice-Chair: Steve Gibbard Program Director: Paul Emmons Technical Director: Brandon Ross Member at Large: Chris Spears Of course, we continue to receive support from Betty Burke, Executive Director and Valerie Wittkop for Project Management. On the instruction front, we have two classes getting lined up for the Bellevue NANOG. David Barak will be joining us again to teach our 3rd Routing Fundamentals class and we are finalizing contracts now for an IPv6 course. Registration will be open soon for both courses so stay tuned. Dave Siegel Chair, Ad-hoc Education Committee (NANOG)

1 0

Former 360/Ledcor employees from the NW
by D. Ryan Spott 27 Mar '14

27 Mar '14

I am looking for some fiber in the PNW coastal area and for that field tech that knows where all the skeletons and vaults might be buried. I know Ledcor installed it, 360-networks bought it and then Zayo now owns it but cannot find it on their maps. ryan

1 0

Switchport Counters - Take two
by rwebb＠ropeguru.com 27 Mar '14

27 Mar '14

Apologies to everyone for the original email with no subject. I am having some senior email moments today. Anyway.... So I certainly admit I am a basic networking guy and in the past have not had to get into the nitty gritty of port statistics. I am trying to understand some statistics off a switch port in a Nexus 4001i. All TX and RX counters look normal except on the TX side, I am showing 1107597 input discards. Last clearing of show counters is 1d8h ago. I have it in my mind that this particular counter is dropping packets coming in from another port inside the switch that are to be transmitted out to the end server. So lets say the interface I am looking at is port 2 on the switch. So server 1 sends a packet to port 1 on the switch. That packet then traverses to backplane, or inside the same ASIC, to port 2 on the switch. It is then dropped and not transmitted out to server 2. Is the scenario I just presented correct? Not looking for the reason in this email, just that my logical understanding is correct. Robert

2 1

None
by rwebb＠ropeguru.com 27 Mar '14

27 Mar '14

So I certainly admit I am a basic networking guy and in the past have not had to get into the nitty gritty of port statistics. I am trying to understand some statistics off a switch port in a Nexus 4001i. All TX and RX counters look normal except on the TX side, I am showing 1107597 input discards. Last clearing of show counters is 1d8h ago. I have it in my mind that this particular counter is dropping packets coming in from another port inside the switch that are to be transmitted out to the end server. So lets say the interface I am looking at is port 2 on the switch. So server 1 sends a packet to port 1 on the switch. That packet then traverses to backplane, or inside the same ASIC, to port 2 on the switch. It is then dropped and not transmitted out to server 2. Is the scenario I just presented correct? Not looking for the reason in this email, just that my logical understanding is correct. Robert Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone

2 2

RE: Switchport Counters
by rwebb＠ropeguru.com 27 Mar '14

27 Mar '14

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: rwebb(a)ropeguru.com Date:03/27/2014 11:52 AM (GMT-05:00) To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject:

1 0