[cisco-voip] glibc/ghost vulnerability

[Charles Goldsmith]

Gotcha, thanks for the explanation Wes, that's what I was looking for and
can explain it to the customer.  I'll let the customer know of the risks
and let them make the decision to upgrade or wait for a minor patch.

Thanks!

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Wes Sisk (wsisk) <wsisk at cisco.com> wrote:

>  I’ll lead off with: UCCX does a fair amount of work to customize the VOS
> platform to their needs. As such they don’t pull in updates and fixes as
> fast as UCM, UC, and CUP.
>
>  I bet if you check the kernel or RHEL version you will find significant
> difference and that contributes to the complexity of the fix.
> admin:show packages active kernel
> Active Side Package(s): for kernel package(s)
> kernel-firmware-2.6.32-431.20.3.el6.noarch
> kernel-2.6.32-431.20.3.el6.x86_64
> platform-kernel-tunable-1.0.0.0-1.i386
> dracut-kernel-004-336.el6_5.1.noarch
>
>  RyanL may weigh in with better details.
>
>  -w
>
>  On Jul 10, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Charles Goldsmith <wokka at justfamily.org>
> wrote:
>
>  I understand that CUCM and UCCX are both VOS, and that it's probably not
> the same version, but I don't understand why the platform team for CUCM can
> give us a minor patch but we can't get the same out of UCCX.
>
>  I'm sure most of you are like me, and steer clear of .0 releases.  There
> is an old saying, dot Oh, oh no.
>
>  I'm not comfortable advising a customer to upgrade to the 11.0 release.
>
>  Would like thoughts on this, and some explanation of the differences of
> the VOS between CUCM/CUC and UCCX.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20150710/dec75659/attachment.html>