cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
826
Views
0
Helpful
2
Replies

Signatures - Inconsistencies/Conflicts

mikecrowe4ICS_2
Beginner
Beginner

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- Sig 3308/0 is still enabled and not retired by default, even though it is obsolete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

1 Accepted Solution

Accepted Solutions

praprama
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

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

View solution in original post

2 Replies 2

praprama
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

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

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.

Getting Started

Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community:

Recognize Your Peers