that bug was so egregious, it demonstrates a rare level of incompetence
I wish so much this was true, but it super isn’t. Some of the recent Cisco security flaws are just so brain-dead stupid you wonder if they have any internal quality control at all… and, well, there was the Crowdstrike thing…
Idk, this was kind of a rare combination of “write secure function; proceed to ignore secure function and rawdog strings instead” + “it can be exploited by entering a string with a semicolon”. Neither of those are anything near as egregious as a use after free or buffer overflow. I get programming is hard but like, yikes. It should have been caught on both ends
Some of the recent Cisco security flaws are just so brain-dead stupid you wonder if they have any internal quality control at all
At the super budget prices Cisco charges, do you really expect quality control to be included? You’ve got to buy a quality control subscription for that. /s
Because that bug was so egregious, it demonstrates a rare level of incompetence.
I wish so much this was true, but it super isn’t. Some of the recent Cisco security flaws are just so brain-dead stupid you wonder if they have any internal quality control at all… and, well, there was the Crowdstrike thing…
Idk, this was kind of a rare combination of “write secure function; proceed to ignore secure function and rawdog strings instead” + “it can be exploited by entering a string with a semicolon”. Neither of those are anything near as egregious as a use after free or buffer overflow. I get programming is hard but like, yikes. It should have been caught on both ends
At the super budget prices Cisco charges, do you really expect quality control to be included? You’ve got to buy a quality control subscription for that. /s