{"id":2322,"date":"2003-12-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-12-19T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2003\/12\/19\/cisco-warns-of-dos-danger-for-switch-users\/"},"modified":"2021-12-30T11:41:04","modified_gmt":"2021-12-30T11:41:04","slug":"cisco-warns-of-dos-danger-for-switch-users","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2003\/12\/19\/cisco-warns-of-dos-danger-for-switch-users\/","title":{"rendered":"Cisco Warns of DoS Danger for Switch Users"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Cisco Systems Inc. this week warned that a pair of software security flaws could leave its switches open to denial-of-service attacks.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>According to Cisco, &#8220;The Cisco FWSM may crash and reload due to a buffer overflow vulnerability while processing HTTP traffic requests for authentication using TACACS+ or RADIUS.  If the user name and password are verified by the designated TACACS+ or RADIUS authentication server, the Cisco FWSM will allow further traffic between the authentication server and the connection to interact independently through the Cisco FWSM&#8217;s &#8216;cut-through proxy&#8217; feature.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The second occurs when the FWSM receives and processes an SNMPv3 message &#8220;when snmp-server host or snmp-server host poll is configured on the Cisco FWSM.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>More info: [url=http:\/\/www.eweek.com\/article2\/0,4149,1418087,00.asp]http:\/\/www.eweek.com\/article2\/0,4149,1418087,00.asp[\/url]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2322","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-warnings"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2322","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2322"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2322\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4809,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2322\/revisions\/4809"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}