<?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: defect in current IPS signatures causing crashes in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/defect-in-current-ips-signatures-causing-crashes/m-p/1177706#M77297</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I've experienced the same thing happening on several IPS that I manage going back to a few months even.  Certainly is a pain in the neck to have your IDS come up after the upgrade but the anal engine not be running and require a reboot of the device.  &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:34:05 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>jnommensen</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2009-04-22T21:34:05Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>defect in current IPS signatures causing crashes</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/defect-in-current-ips-signatures-causing-crashes/m-p/1177705#M77296</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;In the "Caveats" section of the just-released S392 IPS signature update, Cisco acknowledges a "defect present" in the memory managerÂ&amp;nbsp;which they're working on, but which can (ie very likely in our experience with our AIP-SSM-10 module and S389) cause the update to fail and requiring a manual power recycle of the ASA, leaving you back where you started -- hopefully, with the module up and current signature active, or at worse, unable to start up the AIP-SSM module. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Having had this happen to us, we are going to hold off going ahead with the upgrade, as we would be guaranteed to go through an unnecessary and unproductive ordeal. Â&amp;nbsp;Â&amp;nbsp; I would like to know of other users' experience with recent signatures, at least as new as S389.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 10 Mar 2019 11:35:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/defect-in-current-ips-signatures-causing-crashes/m-p/1177705#M77296</guid>
      <dc:creator>pmiller</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-10T11:35:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: defect in current IPS signatures causing crashes</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/defect-in-current-ips-signatures-causing-crashes/m-p/1177706#M77297</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I've experienced the same thing happening on several IPS that I manage going back to a few months even.  Certainly is a pain in the neck to have your IDS come up after the upgrade but the anal engine not be running and require a reboot of the device.  &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:34:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/defect-in-current-ips-signatures-causing-crashes/m-p/1177706#M77297</guid>
      <dc:creator>jnommensen</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-04-22T21:34:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

