Explaining, not a denial written by their legal department. I find it insanely difficult to believe cisco systems has a backdoor into some of their product lines with no knowledge or participation. Given the fact that RSA had a check cut for their participation (sell outs..), would it be out of the realm of possibility cisco knowingly placed this into their product line? And would it be their mistake to come out with a “we had no idea!” rather than “guys with badges and court orders made us do it!”? Google has some deniability, as their networks were compromised without their knowledge. Placing code into a PC BIOS or IOS image is a far different beast than asking a fiber provider to give a split to a governmental agency. Secret squirrel wires with secret squirrel modulation techniques isn’t a surprise to me, what is a surprise to me is the level of acceptance the IT community has shown thus far on NANOG. On a side note, I found it unbelievable the NSA was so pissed off about aeronautical access being hard to capture. The initial article made it seem like they had already gotten ahold of the data, which would have really pissed me off. If it’s really that difficult, I have a NSA proof satellite platform with capacity should anyone need it.. ;) //warren On 12/31/13, 12:34 PM, "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net> wrote:
On Jan 1, 2014, at 2:16 AM, Warren Bailey <wbailey@satelliteintelligencegroup.com> wrote:
Randy is right here.. Cisco has some Œsplainin to do - we buy these devices as ³security appliances², not NSA rootkit gateways
<http://blogs.cisco.com/news/comment-on-der-spiegel-articles-about-nsa-tao -organization/>
<http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityResponse/cisc o-sr-20131229-der-spiegel>
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
Luck is the residue of opportunity and design.
-- John Milton