Signatures - Inconsistencies/Conflicts

[mikecrowe4ICS_2]

After digging through the standard signature definitions, I've come across some inconsistencies and possible errors.  Should I open a TAC case to address these?  Just posts in this forum?  Or is there some other way to have these questions addressed?

For example ...

- Sig 3308/0 is a component of meta-signature 3338/1

- Sig 3308/0 is obsoleted by sig 5580/0

- Sig 3308/0 is still enabled and not retired by default, even though it is obsolete

- Sig 3338/1 still references 3308/0 as a component, and does not reference sig 5580/0 at all

This just doesn't add up for me.  Shouldn't 3308/0 be disabled/retired by default?  Shouldn't 3338/1 be updated to reference 5580/0 as a component?

Message was edited by: Michael Crowe - removed duplicate link text

[praprama · Accepted solution]

Hi Mike,

Great catch. Thanks for bringing this to our notice. I would suggest you open a TAC case to get this looked into. Let me know how it goes!

Cheers,

Prapanch

[mikecrowe4ICS_2]

Thanks, Prapanch.  I'll open up a TAC case today.  I've got about 8 other examples of things like this, so I'll write them up and send them in together.