Heads Up :
The post you are writing will appear in a public forum. Please ensure all content is appropriate for public consumption. Review the employee guidelines for the community here.
Hello,I noticed some weird lines left on the console of a Firepower appliance running ASA 9.16(2)14 today.ERROR: Invalid hostname: '' *; host ck4glj8u9e5sr[REDACTED]oast.site; ''INFO: A hostname must have letters or digits, and can have wild characte...
We have an active SNTC 8X5XNBD support subscription and we have created a case for an RMA two weeks ago. Yet we still haven't received an RMA in our ticket and we have no place to ship our defective product to to get a replacement. Did Cisco stop acc...
So our network went down as a result of our Firepower appliance crashing and it was discovered by TAC that it is related to an ikev2 error in CSCvr10777. The status of the bug shows "fixed" with "no workarounds" but the software affected is 9.12(2.4)...
I can no longer trust Cisco to make any effort to patch their products for security vulnerabilities.CSCvp80474 has already been patched on the older ASA model that we we're prepared to buy until Cisco sold us on these new "Firepower" devices. I curre...
We are running a Firepower 1120 Security Appliance running the latest recommended software FDM 6.4.0.4. Whenever we make a change to any of the NAT policies and deploy the change it seems to delete all the NAT rules and re-add them instead of just ch...
Yes but my question is: why would there be a hostname appearing in the logs? And in the console of all things.If we are getting a DDoS attack shouldn't the logs contain the IP address instead?
I hate to post a message on such an old topic but I just wanted to let the community know how GLAD I was to have switched from FTD to ASA. I recently had to opportunity to return a faulty NGFW so before I packaged it up I installed the latest starred...
Ok after speaking with TAC I was able to get the RMA process started. We ended up shipping it back in some of the packing materials the replacement firewall came in (not the box though, I see that that's not allowed by Cisco's policy for competitors ...
I guess the question is that is it just normal for Cisco to ignore SSL errors on their appliances now? I have also noticed that even on the most recent version of FTD it won't accept any SSL certificate other than the built in self-signed certificate...
