4 ms·

> Three months later, the company refused to renew its licenses. Does the equipment stop working? I don’t understand how any country in the world is using equ

> Three months later, the company refused to renew its licenses. Does the equipment stop working? I don’t understand how any country in the world is using equipment that can be turned off by the manufacturer. Infrastructure, communications, farming, etc. should all be run with non-revocable licenses. Make it the law.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
atemerev 4y ago
Not your production -- not your coins^W hardware. In peacetime, it doesn't matter too much, because nearly nothing can outweigh the reputation loss if there is a case of remote equipment sabotage. In wartime, however, all bets are off. Not that I have any pity towards Russia, but, say, China can also do this in the case of war.
- jstarfish 4y ago
  Yeah, we know. The US proactively banned Huawei gear to prevent the same rug from being pulled out from under us. Europe has Juniper. Same with some foreign governments moving to private-label Linux variants to reduce reliance on [US-produced] Windows. Next is TikTok, to eliminate foreign software with large domestic deployment. Unless we backdoor Android/iOS, the US doesn't have too many more strings to pull.
goodpoint 4y ago
"Cisco Systems decided to physically destroy spare parts, product demonstrations, equipment and even furniture"
- The_Colonel 4y ago
  I don't think that answers the question. OP asked (probably) about hardware deployed on client premises, but running proprietary software requiring license (or perhaps subscription as the "renew" suggests?).
wjholden 4y ago
No. Cisco IOS/IOS-XE routers and switches will complain that you haven't licensed them correctly, but it doesn't impact functionality. Cisco shot both it's feet years ago with an unpopular "SMART Licensing" scheme. One of my proudest moments as a net tech was the shocked silence when I told a room of Cisco employees that we weren't upgrading our 3850s past 16.6 (or something) because we refused to deal with their SMART licensing. They came up with a solution and we ended up upgrading (there was a feature in a later version that we wanted). In the past, there were different software images for different feature sets. If you could get ahold of an image you didn't pay for, it would just work and you'd have functionality that wasn't licensed. In the really distant past, this worked but not well because you'd need specialized hardware for things like fast encryption for VPN. So, if you didn't pay for the securityk9 license and used the 2811 without a VPN module, it would work but not well. Anyways, I'm not aware of Cisco having any ability to brick customer equipment. I read this article as saying they destroyed their own property in branches and warehouses within the Russian Federation.
- tinus_hn 4y ago
  You won’t have a solution for the monthly CVEs for Cisco’s firmware though.
  - RobotToaster 4y ago
    Is cisco firmware piracy not a thing? I get the feeling it's about to become one if it wasn't.
    - red-iron-pine 4y ago
      You can easily find firmwares for older EOL systems. Cisco isn't even gonna fight that. Readily available on the Bay of Yarrrrrrr Newer firmwares for Cisco, Juniper, Brocade, et al, are a little harder but still easy to find. In both cases caveat emptor, since you have no way of knowing if they're trustworthy or not. I messed around with some older yarrrrrr firmware when I was studying for my CCNP and built a lap from craigslist hardware, but that was behind a pfsense firewall I built myself and kept totally away from anything that mattered. No malicious behavior AFAIK, but I'd never trust those IOS/IOS-NX images in Prod.
crazygringo 4y ago
But that's like saying if you don't pay your mortgage the bank isn't allowed to repossess your house. You think banks are going to keep providing mortgages? The ability to remotely disable equipment is essential in order to allow for cheaper financing plans, to make sure customers don't steal stuff they haven't finished paying for, or that they've only been leasing. Sure, you could pass a law prohibiting that. But then customers have to pay a whole lot more in financing/leasing because there's much more incentive to stop payment but keep the equipment, and repossessing the equipment gets messy. (You can move/hide a tractor or a router much more easily than you can move a house.)
- godzillabrennus 4y ago
  Several times in my 20 year career I’ve seen startups get financing for equipment then turn around and not pay the bill. Makes perfect sense to add this kind of DRM for financing but we all know nation states will abuse it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

atemerev 4y ago

Not your production -- not your coins^W hardware. In peacetime, it doesn't matter too much, because nearly nothing can outweigh the reputation loss if there is a case of remote equipment sabotage. In wartime, however, all bets are off. Not that I have any pity towards Russia, but, say, China can also do this in the case of war.

jstarfish 4y ago
Yeah, we know. The US proactively banned Huawei gear to prevent the same rug from being pulled out from under us. Europe has Juniper. Same with some foreign governments moving to private-label Linux variants to reduce reliance on [US-produced] Windows. Next is TikTok, to eliminate foreign software with large domestic deployment. Unless we backdoor Android/iOS, the US doesn't have too many more strings to pull.

goodpoint 4y ago

"Cisco Systems decided to physically destroy spare parts, product demonstrations, equipment and even furniture"

The_Colonel 4y ago
I don't think that answers the question. OP asked (probably) about hardware deployed on client premises, but running proprietary software requiring license (or perhaps subscription as the "renew" suggests?).

wjholden 4y ago

No. Cisco IOS/IOS-XE routers and switches will complain that you haven't licensed them correctly, but it doesn't impact functionality. Cisco shot both it's feet years ago with an unpopular "SMART Licensing" scheme. One of my proudest moments as a net tech was the shocked silence when I told a room of Cisco employees that we weren't upgrading our 3850s past 16.6 (or something) because we refused to deal with their SMART licensing. They came up with a solution and we ended up upgrading (there was a feature in a later version that we wanted). In the past, there were different software images for different feature sets. If you could get ahold of an image you didn't pay for, it would just work and you'd have functionality that wasn't licensed. In the really distant past, this worked but not well because you'd need specialized hardware for things like fast encryption for VPN. So, if you didn't pay for the securityk9 license and used the 2811 without a VPN module, it would work but not well. Anyways, I'm not aware of Cisco having any ability to brick customer equipment. I read this article as saying they destroyed their own property in branches and warehouses within the Russian Federation.

tinus_hn 4y ago
You won’t have a solution for the monthly CVEs for Cisco’s firmware though.
- RobotToaster 4y ago
  Is cisco firmware piracy not a thing? I get the feeling it's about to become one if it wasn't.
  - red-iron-pine 4y ago
    You can easily find firmwares for older EOL systems. Cisco isn't even gonna fight that. Readily available on the Bay of Yarrrrrrr Newer firmwares for Cisco, Juniper, Brocade, et al, are a little harder but still easy to find. In both cases caveat emptor, since you have no way of knowing if they're trustworthy or not. I messed around with some older yarrrrrr firmware when I was studying for my CCNP and built a lap from craigslist hardware, but that was behind a pfsense firewall I built myself and kept totally away from anything that mattered. No malicious behavior AFAIK, but I'd never trust those IOS/IOS-NX images in Prod.

crazygringo 4y ago

But that's like saying if you don't pay your mortgage the bank isn't allowed to repossess your house. You think banks are going to keep providing mortgages? The ability to remotely disable equipment is essential in order to allow for cheaper financing plans, to make sure customers don't steal stuff they haven't finished paying for, or that they've only been leasing. Sure, you could pass a law prohibiting that. But then customers have to pay a whole lot more in financing/leasing because there's much more incentive to stop payment but keep the equipment, and repossessing the equipment gets messy. (You can move/hide a tractor or a router much more easily than you can move a house.)

godzillabrennus 4y ago
Several times in my 20 year career I’ve seen startups get financing for equipment then turn around and not pay the bill. Makes perfect sense to add this kind of DRM for financing but we all know nation states will abuse it.