It's different thing. Any infrastructure based on Windows is under risk.
But it's not because VoIP uses ASN.1.
--Wednesday, February 18, 2004, 12:32:10 AM, you wrote to 3APA3A (at) SECURITY.NNOV (dot) RU [email concealed]:
FW> 3APA3A wrote:
>> ASN.1 is used by many services, but all use different underlying
>> protocols. It's not likely NetMeeting or MS ISA server to be primary
>> attack targets. Attack against MS IPSec implementation, Exchange,
>> SMB/CIFS, RPC services, IIS and specially IE will no have impact to VoIP
>> infrastructure (except connectivity degradation because of massive
>> traffic).
FW> I wish your assessment were true, but it's not. Cisco Call Manager is
FW> based on Windows, and Cisco still has to certify the patches Microsoft
FW> released.
FW> It's sad that Microsoft apparently hasn't used those six months to
FW> properly coordinate the issue with OEM vendors.
It's different thing. Any infrastructure based on Windows is under risk.
But it's not because VoIP uses ASN.1.
--Wednesday, February 18, 2004, 12:32:10 AM, you wrote to 3APA3A (at) SECURITY.NNOV (dot) RU [email concealed]:
FW> 3APA3A wrote:
>> ASN.1 is used by many services, but all use different underlying
>> protocols. It's not likely NetMeeting or MS ISA server to be primary
>> attack targets. Attack against MS IPSec implementation, Exchange,
>> SMB/CIFS, RPC services, IIS and specially IE will no have impact to VoIP
>> infrastructure (except connectivity degradation because of massive
>> traffic).
FW> I wish your assessment were true, but it's not. Cisco Call Manager is
FW> based on Windows, and Cisco still has to certify the patches Microsoft
FW> released.
FW> It's sad that Microsoft apparently hasn't used those six months to
FW> properly coordinate the issue with OEM vendors.
--
~/ZARAZA
Íó à òåïåðü, Óèëüÿì, õîðîøåíüêî ïîðàçìûñëèòå íàä äàííûì ïèñüìîì. (Òâåí)
[ reply ]