[83260] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cisco crapaganda
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James Baldwin)
Tue Aug 9 10:57:56 2005
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0508090957070.1582@kungfunix.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
From: James Baldwin <jbaldwin@antinode.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 10:57:29 -0400
To: J.Oquendo <sil@politrix.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Aug 9, 2005, at 9:57 AM, J. Oquendo wrote:
> Ironic the marketing and disinformation coming out of Cisco Systems
> in relation to not disclosing what really occurred and labeling the
> vulnerability as "IPv6 based.... but" after they initially stated
> it as "IPv6 only!"
Its a half truth. The vulnerability was IPv6 only, the method for
executing arbitrary code was not. That's definitely spin, and I hope
they address it soon.
> Spin spin sugar... Looking at this current situation I'm wondering
> when did it become a federal offense to break a non disclosure
> agreement.
The FBI is not investigating violation of a non disclosure agreement.
My understanding is that they are investigating possible trade secret
theft. Also, please note that there is a large up welling of support
within the federal government for what Lynn did and it would be
improper to characterize them all as demons. The FBI is performing
due diligence investigations based on reports to them of criminal
activity.
The FBI, in this case, is not the person responsible for this ongoing
investigation. Rather, that lies with the assigned prosecutor and
whomever the reporting parties were.
A much better summary of these events can be found at Jennifer
Granick's blog:
http://www.granick.com/blog/
