3 ms·
Ok wow, anyone else thinks Cisco is being really stupid here? Their sanitizer might make sense for inbound smtp connections from authenticated mail clients, as
by iforgotpassword 3y ago
Ok wow, anyone else thinks Cisco is being really stupid here? Their sanitizer might make sense for inbound smtp connections from authenticated mail clients, as any malicious or accidental "weirdness" would be turned into proper EOD sequences with no ambiguity for the actual SMTP server.
But for inbound connections from other smtp servers this actually makes sure the exploit works 100%, the smtp server behind the gateway has zero chance to detect the attack since it now gets a proper EOD sequence with another mail after. Just wow that they couldn't understand that this is a bad default.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Aachen 3y ago> any malicious or accidental "weirdness" would be turned into proper EOD sequences Yeah, that's the result in this case. In other cases, not allowing malicious weirdness to pass may prevent a whole host of vulnerabilities from being able to reach your system at all. Trade-offs. In this case, it happened to make you vulnerable. Which is better may only be clear with hindsight and experience, but I can see their reasoning. However, their job being to provide additional security, by not fixing the issue (they can leave other "cleaning" rules in place, just this one needs to be forwarded either literally or rejected) they're imo defeating the purpose of their product insofar as I understand