3

I found this article https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/Cisco-SA-20120613-CVE-2012-3047

In here are listed vulnerable products, but the list of products that received fixed software is lot shorter.

Does this mean Cisco did not patch vulnerability in those not listed under Fixed Software? Those devices are considered too old to be updated?

4

The products that aren't being patched are considered EOL (End of Life) or obsolete. Their entire cable modem line, including all the DPXX models, was sold to Technicolor.

You can find more information here: http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/about/ac49/ac0/ac1/ac259/docs/connected-devices.pdf

  • I see, so those are considered too old... guess it's time to talk with my ISP of why have they not replaced my old modem then. – Wedlemoko Jan 13 '17 at 19:32
  • That's weird. Found right now article from Cisco where few of those that were not patched in this post, got patch few years later for something different. So... Cisco did not path old modems for one vulnerability, but patched another vulnerability few years later... honestly, this is confusing. – Wedlemoko Jan 13 '17 at 20:21
  • In some cases, I have seen them patch the more serious vulnerabilities despite them being EOL. It's rare though. And I don't know the story behind this one as you've not linked the post. – J.J Jun 29 '18 at 13:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.