3 ms·
CISCO has not only a long history of creating backdoors, but have also been marketing them as features. They even wrote an IETF proposal (RFC 2804) for a LI bac
by DyslexicAtheist 7y ago
CISCO has not only a long history of creating backdoors, but have also been marketing them as features. They even wrote an IETF proposal (RFC 2804) for a LI backdoor:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2804 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2804
https://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-dc-10/Cross_Tom/BlackHat-DC-2010-Cross-Attacking-LawfulI-Intercept-slides.pdf https://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-dc-10/Cross_Tom/Bl...
Edit: Schneier wrote in 2018: "We don't know if this is error or deliberate action, but five backdoors have been discovered [in CISCO] already this year." and linking to this article: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/cisco-backdoor-hardcoded-accounts-software,37480.html https://www.tomshardware.com/news/cisco-backdoor-hardcoded-a... (the final count went up to 7 actual backdoors discovered in 2018.
From May 2019: https://www.scmagazineuk.com/cisco-firewalls-routers-switches-compromised-thrangrycat-just-dont-call-backdoor/article/1584822 https://www.scmagazineuk.com/cisco-firewalls-routers-switche...
- johnmaguire2013 7y agoThe IETF proposal you linked is not for a backdoor. It's IETF refusing to set rules on future IETF standards including, or not including wiretapping. i.e. It states that whether a standard includes a wiretap or not is irrelevant to it being an IETF standard.