<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Untrusted TLS/SSL server X.509 certificate- ISE in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/untrusted-tls-ssl-server-x-509-certificate-ise/m-p/3678864#M508538</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Usually the scanner report would provide some recommendations.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;This is not necessarily a vulnerability. A fresh install ISE has a self-signed certificate and we may easily replace it with a certificate signed by a well-known CA. See&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://community.cisco.com/docs/DOC-68164" target="_blank"&gt;How To: Implement ISE Server-Side Certificates&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2018 06:48:48 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>hslai</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-08-01T06:48:48Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Untrusted TLS/SSL server X.509 certificate- ISE</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/untrusted-tls-ssl-server-x-509-certificate-ise/m-p/3678801#M508537</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;When a Vulnerability scanner is run in a network then it shows this vulnerability. Any idea how to resolve this?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2018 04:43:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/untrusted-tls-ssl-server-x-509-certificate-ise/m-p/3678801#M508537</guid>
      <dc:creator>st92</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-08-01T04:43:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Untrusted TLS/SSL server X.509 certificate- ISE</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/untrusted-tls-ssl-server-x-509-certificate-ise/m-p/3678864#M508538</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Usually the scanner report would provide some recommendations.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;This is not necessarily a vulnerability. A fresh install ISE has a self-signed certificate and we may easily replace it with a certificate signed by a well-known CA. See&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://community.cisco.com/docs/DOC-68164" target="_blank"&gt;How To: Implement ISE Server-Side Certificates&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2018 06:48:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/untrusted-tls-ssl-server-x-509-certificate-ise/m-p/3678864#M508538</guid>
      <dc:creator>hslai</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-08-01T06:48:48Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

