<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cisco&#8217;s Slew of Vulnerabilities</title>
	<atom:link href="http://voipsa.org/blog/2008/02/14/ciscos-slew-of-vulnerabilities/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://voipsa.org/blog/2008/02/14/ciscos-slew-of-vulnerabilities/</link>
	<description>Collective thoughts and musings on the state of VoIP security today.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2010 15:11:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dustin D. Trammell</title>
		<link>http://voipsa.org/blog/2008/02/14/ciscos-slew-of-vulnerabilities/comment-page-1/#comment-159223</link>
		<dc:creator>Dustin D. Trammell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:21:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://voipsa.org/blog/2008/02/14/ciscos-slew-of-vulnerabilities/#comment-159223</guid>
		<description>Oh I&#039;m not surprised at all... In fact, my post was more making the point that the status quo that we&#039;ve been dealing with regarding the security posture of new VoIP endpoints is the same as it has been for years.  I understand the business mentality and processes that creates the situation, as I mentioned toward the end of my most recent blog post about underpowered hardware, however that doesn&#039;t excuse the fact that vendors that don&#039;t put in the effort up-front foster an increased state of vulnerability in their customer&#039;s networks.  I believe that there is absolutely something wrong with that, even if it&#039;s counter to the bottom line, and only by continuing to talk about it is it likely to ever change, if at all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh I&#8217;m not surprised at all&#8230; In fact, my post was more making the point that the status quo that we&#8217;ve been dealing with regarding the security posture of new VoIP endpoints is the same as it has been for years.  I understand the business mentality and processes that creates the situation, as I mentioned toward the end of my most recent blog post about underpowered hardware, however that doesn&#8217;t excuse the fact that vendors that don&#8217;t put in the effort up-front foster an increased state of vulnerability in their customer&#8217;s networks.  I believe that there is absolutely something wrong with that, even if it&#8217;s counter to the bottom line, and only by continuing to talk about it is it likely to ever change, if at all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stan Beatme</title>
		<link>http://voipsa.org/blog/2008/02/14/ciscos-slew-of-vulnerabilities/comment-page-1/#comment-156467</link>
		<dc:creator>Stan Beatme</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:27:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://voipsa.org/blog/2008/02/14/ciscos-slew-of-vulnerabilities/#comment-156467</guid>
		<description>Are you kidding? It&#039;s how business works. Don&#039;t act surprised. Microsoft, Apple, etc.... push products to market and clean up later. 

BUT HERE&#039;S THE KICKER -- ***There&#039;s nothing at all wrong with this.*** Anything else doesn&#039;t make sense and is impossible to test the scope of having that many systems deployed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are you kidding? It&#8217;s how business works. Don&#8217;t act surprised. Microsoft, Apple, etc&#8230;. push products to market and clean up later. </p>
<p>BUT HERE&#8217;S THE KICKER &#8212; ***There&#8217;s nothing at all wrong with this.*** Anything else doesn&#8217;t make sense and is impossible to test the scope of having that many systems deployed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
