{"id":2369,"date":"2005-05-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-05-26T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2005\/05\/26\/cisco-warns-over-dns-glitch\/"},"modified":"2021-12-30T11:41:10","modified_gmt":"2021-12-30T11:41:10","slug":"cisco-warns-over-dns-glitch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2005\/05\/26\/cisco-warns-over-dns-glitch\/","title":{"rendered":"Cisco warns over DNS glitch"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Cisco is advising users of its IP telephony kit to update their software following the discovery of a flaw that might allow hackers to mount denial of service attacks.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The bug, involving flaws in the processing of maliciously crafted DNS (Domain Name System) packets, also affects some of Cisco&#8217;s content networking and secure router products.  The vulnerability is limited to Cisco products running DNS clients, rather than DNS Server functions, and creates a means for remote attackers to crash vulnerable devices, Cisco warns.<\/p>\n<p>Cisco has made a series of free software upgrades available to address the vulnerability.<\/p>\n<p>The scope of the vulnerability &#8211; and the number of products affected &#8211; promises to create a lot of work in Cisco shops, so users are advised to scope out remedial work sooner rather than later.  <\/p>\n<p>More technical details (but not a list of affected vendors) can be found in a UK government UNIRAS alert here: http:\/\/www.niscc.gov.uk\/niscc\/docs\/al-20050524-00433.html<\/p>\n<p>http:\/\/www.theregister.co.uk\/2005\/05\/26\/cisco_dns_glitch\/<\/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-2369","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\/2369","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=2369"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2369\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4856,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2369\/revisions\/4856"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2369"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}