3 ms·

Why should it be possible for a third party to deactivate my hardware for any reason after I bought it?

dalksfjid 7y ago
Because if a product comes new, and is used in an attack against a customer, Cisco could be found liable. Considering the high stakes implementations high end Cisco gear can be found in, this is not a small concern. Anyways, when you're buying hardware at this price point, you're not just paying for a box that moves packets.
- viraptor 7y ago
  I don't believe Cisco would be liable. Just like not a single manufacturer was liable for Mirai.
bnjms 7y ago
I don’t think we’re buying hardware anymore at this level. I think we’re buying software and support with hardware included. Not sure how I feel about this on all situations but I’d say that’s the only perspective the vendors can defend. It’s too bad for them too since eventually someone will build free software too.
- Silhouette 7y ago
  It’s too bad for them too since eventually someone will build free software too. In many cases, they already are, though it's debatable whether it's ready to compete head-on with the major commercial offerings. You can buy white box switches and open software platforms to control them for SDN purposes right now, for example. But I'd say so far the main SDN suites haven't built up a great reputation and a lot of IT groups still prefer to source everything from one supplier with an expensive but all-encompassing support contract.
  - topranks 7y ago
    You can run commodity / white box switches in regular old mode, with routing protocols etc. Just because you have a Broadcom chip doesn’t mean you need to use some new-fangled centralized / crontroller based control plane.
    - Silhouette 7y ago
      Sure. My point was just that the more free/open alternatives to newer technologies in the industry aren't necessarily advanced enough yet to displace coughing up whatever it takes to buy big name brands and their big budget support contracts so everything comes from one place.

Because if a product comes new, and is used in an attack against a customer, Cisco could be found liable. Considering the high stakes implementations high end Cisco gear can be found in, this is not a small concern. Anyways, when you're buying hardware at this price point, you're not just paying for a box that moves packets.

viraptor 7y ago
I don't believe Cisco would be liable. Just like not a single manufacturer was liable for Mirai.

bnjms 7y ago

I don’t think we’re buying hardware anymore at this level. I think we’re buying software and support with hardware included. Not sure how I feel about this on all situations but I’d say that’s the only perspective the vendors can defend. It’s too bad for them too since eventually someone will build free software too.

Silhouette 7y ago
It’s too bad for them too since eventually someone will build free software too. In many cases, they already are, though it's debatable whether it's ready to compete head-on with the major commercial offerings. You can buy white box switches and open software platforms to control them for SDN purposes right now, for example. But I'd say so far the main SDN suites haven't built up a great reputation and a lot of IT groups still prefer to source everything from one supplier with an expensive but all-encompassing support contract.
- topranks 7y ago
  You can run commodity / white box switches in regular old mode, with routing protocols etc. Just because you have a Broadcom chip doesn’t mean you need to use some new-fangled centralized / crontroller based control plane.
  - Silhouette 7y ago
    Sure. My point was just that the more free/open alternatives to newer technologies in the industry aren't necessarily advanced enough yet to displace coughing up whatever it takes to buy big name brands and their big budget support contracts so everything comes from one place.