[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[outages] More notes
- Subject: [outages] More notes
- From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu)
- Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:05:27 -0500
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 08 Nov 2011 09:21:37 +0100." <[email protected]>
- References: <CAHsqw9sw1BbPMNUftpNUfoX7o2KVJNGPJHzN0itNxeE0JR6ADQ@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAMKfM=gyKttBxgzYWA8zK=wbTEG0=te4eJEtwZO=g8cDoY2tVw@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]>
On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 09:21:37 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer said:
> I disagree. The official bug statement from Juniper in August was
> trying very hard to downplay the importance of the bug ("Given the
> complexity of conditions required to trigger this issue, the
> probability of exploiting this defect is extremely low"). No wonder so
> few people (and not only at Level-3) did not upgrade.
August (and if that's when the *fix* came out, the bug is even older).
September.
October.
November. So maybe the probability *is* low.
And if JunOS is anything like CIsco IOS, a lot of shops didn't upgrade because
the newer release has *other* issues in their environments. Nobody wants to
upgrade to fix a once-ever-few-months bug if it also buys them a daily crash in
something else.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20111108/af1eae98/attachment.bin>