<?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: Cisco ISE 3.2 hotpatch installation to address CSCwk61938 OpenSSH in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-3-2-hotpatch-installation-to-address-cscwk61938/m-p/5162375#M591278</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I have not applied any hotpatches for CVE's since my ISE deployments are all intranet-facing devices. I will rather wait for the next regular patches and apply those. I reserve the use of hotpatches for things that fix a burning issue that can affect my users. Not saying it's wrong to apply an openssh patch - but this CVE IMHO does not warrant a hotpatch, And generally, applying a hotpatch should not break your ISE deployment, since they are only replacing a very small thing in ISE.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If you're still unsure, patch one lab node (and then one production node) and then always test your services before proceeding to the next nodes. I use that methodology all the time and it's never let me down&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 18 Aug 2024 20:32:13 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Arne Bier</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2024-08-18T20:32:13Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Cisco ISE 3.2 hotpatch installation to address CSCwk61938 OpenSSH</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-3-2-hotpatch-installation-to-address-cscwk61938/m-p/5161749#M591258</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Please confirm any reported issues with the hotpatch installed for fixing the&amp;nbsp;CSCwk61938 (OpenSSH CVE-2024-6387 "regreSSHion" vulnerability). Our ISE version Cisco ISE 3.2 patch 5.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Aug 2024 10:16:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-3-2-hotpatch-installation-to-address-cscwk61938/m-p/5161749#M591258</guid>
      <dc:creator>Gouthami Nair</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-08-16T10:16:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cisco ISE 3.2 hotpatch installation to address CSCwk61938 OpenSSH</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-3-2-hotpatch-installation-to-address-cscwk61938/m-p/5162375#M591278</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I have not applied any hotpatches for CVE's since my ISE deployments are all intranet-facing devices. I will rather wait for the next regular patches and apply those. I reserve the use of hotpatches for things that fix a burning issue that can affect my users. Not saying it's wrong to apply an openssh patch - but this CVE IMHO does not warrant a hotpatch, And generally, applying a hotpatch should not break your ISE deployment, since they are only replacing a very small thing in ISE.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If you're still unsure, patch one lab node (and then one production node) and then always test your services before proceeding to the next nodes. I use that methodology all the time and it's never let me down&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 18 Aug 2024 20:32:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-3-2-hotpatch-installation-to-address-cscwk61938/m-p/5162375#M591278</guid>
      <dc:creator>Arne Bier</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-08-18T20:32:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

