4 ms·

That is completely untrue. You can open a case and get access to downloads outside your support contract if you reference a vulnerability that’s affecting your

That is completely untrue. You can open a case and get access to downloads outside your support contract if you reference a vulnerability that’s affecting your current hardware.

antsar 8y ago
> open a case and get access [...] if you reference a vulnerability that’s affecting your current hardware. Ok, but that's bullshit, isn't it? Not all customers are going to be proactive/attentive enough to know their hardware is vulnerable. Cisco knows there is vulnerable gear in the wild, knows there is a fix, but withholds the fix until people come begging? Almost feels like the sort of thing that should be illegal (or at least on the losing end of a civil suit).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Buge 8y ago
  Didn't Microsoft do something similar by stopping support for Windows XP, but providing support longer for people who pay special support contracts? Of course Microsoft also released some free security updates beyond the date too.
vorpalhex 8y ago
"I'm not holding you hostage and demanding $20k, you can instead just give me your first born child!" Holy crap does anybody actually think that's remotely acceptable behavior? I get better support on discounted Chinese routers I've bought in back alleys - they at least put out their patches for free.
quickben 8y ago
Really? So my cisco home modem messing up DNS and appending Utopia.net, burned in hardware by cisco will get a new firmware if I just ask for it? Please go on and let me know where I can open this case. I am not sarcastic, I really need that fixed.
danShumway 8y ago
That's ridiculous. Most security-critical devices are moving in the direction of auto-updating. I'm not super into that, but I see the justification. You're telling me that Cisco is so far in the opposite direction that if I want to patch a device, I can't download the firmware myself, I have to open a service request saying, "I'd like the latest security patches", and then answer the question, "Why? What specifically are you worried about?" That is not the setup of a company that cares about security. Putting firmware patches behind any kind of account authentication is mind-boggling to me. I wouldn't have guessed that there's a hardware company that does that.

That is completely untrue. You can open a case and get access to downloads outside your support contract if you reference a vulnerability that’s affecting your current hardware.

antsar 8y ago

> open a case and get access [...] if you reference a vulnerability that’s affecting your current hardware. Ok, but that's bullshit, isn't it? Not all customers are going to be proactive/attentive enough to know their hardware is vulnerable. Cisco knows there is vulnerable gear in the wild, knows there is a fix, but withholds the fix until people come begging? Almost feels like the sort of thing that should be illegal (or at least on the losing end of a civil suit).

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Buge 8y ago
Didn't Microsoft do something similar by stopping support for Windows XP, but providing support longer for people who pay special support contracts? Of course Microsoft also released some free security updates beyond the date too.

vorpalhex 8y ago

"I'm not holding you hostage and demanding $20k, you can instead just give me your first born child!" Holy crap does anybody actually think that's remotely acceptable behavior? I get better support on discounted Chinese routers I've bought in back alleys - they at least put out their patches for free.

quickben 8y ago

Really? So my cisco home modem messing up DNS and appending Utopia.net, burned in hardware by cisco will get a new firmware if I just ask for it? Please go on and let me know where I can open this case. I am not sarcastic, I really need that fixed.

danShumway 8y ago

That's ridiculous. Most security-critical devices are moving in the direction of auto-updating. I'm not super into that, but I see the justification. You're telling me that Cisco is so far in the opposite direction that if I want to patch a device, I can't download the firmware myself, I have to open a service request saying, "I'd like the latest security patches", and then answer the question, "Why? What specifically are you worried about?" That is not the setup of a company that cares about security. Putting firmware patches behind any kind of account authentication is mind-boggling to me. I wouldn't have guessed that there's a hardware company that does that.