During the product's most significant test since being purchased from Perfigo, Cisco is sitting on its hands and telling its customers to fend for themselves.
Not confidence-inspiring. As a big Cisco flag-waver, I'm actually a little speechless.
Cheers,
Rand
--
Rand P. Hall * Director, Network Services
Merrimack College * SunGard Higher Education
315 Turnpike Street, North Andover MA 01845 * Tel 978-837-5000
Fax 978-837-5383 * [log in to unmask] * www.sungardhe.com
CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain
confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized
disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error,
please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cisco Clean Access Users and Administrators [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nathaniel Austin
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Microsoft Patch
Bruce,
All I can say is that myself and some of my colleagues did put some
pressure on to add this in. I know we sound like a broken record when we
say this, but I would strongly encourage anyone who is unhappy about
this to tell their account teams and have them put pressure on from
their side as well.
Nate
Osborne, Bruce W. (NS) wrote:
> Nate,
>
> When was this change communicated to Cisco's Clean Access customers??
>
> It appears to me that the BU does not want this product to succeed.
>
> Bruce Osborne
> Liberty University
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cisco Clean Access Users and Administrators [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nathaniel Austin
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 9:45 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CLEANACCESS] Microsoft Patch
>
> Hey Mike,
>
> Word from the BU is that they will only update from Microsoft once a
> month, so this one will not go into the checks and rule set until next
> months Patch Tuesday release.
>
> So a preemptive apology to everyone out there who wants this now. I
> think there are some good custom checks that some of you have created to
> at least get it checked for in your environments in the meantime.
>
> I know this isn't really a consolation, but I think this again proves
> that the WSUS style requirement that checks against Microsoft's WU
> servers instead of our checks and rules is a much better option.
>
> Nate
>
> Mike Diggins wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Osborne, Bruce W. (NS) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> When I last checked this afternoon, Cisco still did not have their
>>> check published. What happened to the commitment to publish within 48
>>> hours of patch release??
>>>
>> I was wondering that myself. I checked a few times today to see if it
>> had been published. I normally only update my CCA servers once a
>> month, so as not to annoy my clients too much, but this one seems like
>> it needs special attention.
>>
>> -Mike
>>
|
