<?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"
	>
<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>
	<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:51:24 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dustin D. Trammell</title>
		<link>http://voipsa.org/blog/2008/02/14/ciscos-slew-of-vulnerabilities/#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'm not surprised at all... In fact, my post was more making the point that the status quo that we'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't excuse the fact that vendors that don't put in the effort up-front foster an increased state of vulnerability in their customer's networks.  I believe that there is absolutely something wrong with that, even if it'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-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's how business works. Don't act surprised. Microsoft, Apple, etc.... push products to market and clean up later. 

BUT HERE'S THE KICKER -- ***There's nothing at all wrong with this.*** Anything else doesn'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>
