<?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: Server Service Code Execution sig for v4.1 IDS in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/server-service-code-execution-sig-for-v4-1-ids/m-p/595542#M98335</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;So when can the Cisco 2800 series be upgraded to engine 5.x?  &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think it's misleading to advertise the 1800, 2800 and 3800 products as security products if signatures cannot be written for them.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:33:18 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>rmaerz</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2006-08-15T18:33:18Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Server Service Code Execution sig for v4.1 IDS</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/server-service-code-execution-sig-for-v4-1-ids/m-p/595540#M98328</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Is there an IDS signature release for the 4.1 platform for this vulnerability ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The bulletin only mentions the 5.x platform.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 10 Mar 2019 20:41:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/server-service-code-execution-sig-for-v4-1-ids/m-p/595540#M98328</guid>
      <dc:creator>wgorman</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-10T20:41:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Server Service Code Execution sig for v4.1 IDS</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/server-service-code-execution-sig-for-v4-1-ids/m-p/595541#M98331</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;IDS version 4.x doesn't have the capabilities required to detect these vulnerabilities with an acceptable level of fidelity, so we have no plans to release a signature to cover MS06-040 in an official 4.x signature update. This custom sig will work in 4.x but it is much more prone to false positive;the 5.x version uses the meta engine which is not available in 4.x. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;String.tcp&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;service ports: 139,445&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;regex:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;\xc8\x4f\x32\x4b\x70\x16\xd3\x01\x12\x78\x5a\x47\xbf\x6e\xe1\x88[\x00-\xff]*\x05\x00\x00[\x00-\xff]\x10\x00\x00\x00[\x00-\xff]{5}\x00\x00\x00[\x00-\xff]{6}\x1f\x00([\x00-\xff]?{16})[\x00-\xff]{4}[\x01-\x25]\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00[\x01-\x25]\x00\x00\x00([0-9A-Za-z\x2e]\x00)*\x00\x00[\x00-\xff]{4}\x00\x00\x00\x00(([\x07-\xff][\x02][\x00][\x00])|([\x00-\xff][\x03-\xff][\x00][\x00])|([\x00-\xff][\x00-\xff][^\x00])|([\x00-\xff][\x00-\xff][\x00-\xff][^\x00]))&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:18:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/server-service-code-execution-sig-for-v4-1-ids/m-p/595541#M98331</guid>
      <dc:creator>craiwill</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-08-14T16:18:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Server Service Code Execution sig for v4.1 IDS</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/server-service-code-execution-sig-for-v4-1-ids/m-p/595542#M98335</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;So when can the Cisco 2800 series be upgraded to engine 5.x?  &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think it's misleading to advertise the 1800, 2800 and 3800 products as security products if signatures cannot be written for them.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:33:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/server-service-code-execution-sig-for-v4-1-ids/m-p/595542#M98335</guid>
      <dc:creator>rmaerz</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-08-15T18:33:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Server Service Code Execution sig for v4.1 IDS</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/server-service-code-execution-sig-for-v4-1-ids/m-p/595543#M98339</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;According to the bulletin, I see that you have released S245 with SigID 5799.0 which looks like a version for the v4.x platform. Is this correct?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is it NOT enabled by default because it is prone to False-Positives?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:40:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/server-service-code-execution-sig-for-v4-1-ids/m-p/595543#M98339</guid>
      <dc:creator>wgorman</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-08-16T16:40:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

