Monday, February 8, 2010
Bonded T1s
Anyway, this is how you configure two full-T1s whenever you need an extra bandwidth but do not need full-DS3 or fractional DS3. This is way cheaper than a fractional DS3.
Note: This router is using two WIC-1DSU-T1-V2 card.
interface s0/0/0
service-module t1 timeslots 1-24
encapsulation ppp
ppp multilink
ppp multilink group 1
!
interface s0/1/0
service-module t1 timeslots 1-24
encapsulation ppp
ppp multilink
ppp multilink group 1
!
interface multlink1
ip address 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.252
ppp multilink
ppp multilink group 1
Hope you learn something today. See you next time!
"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance" - Socrates
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Dont be like this guy
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Switch command
switchport mode access
switchport portfast
The commands above can be issued with a single command. These commands were first mentioned in this post. One caveat though, the command will also disable the channel group capability of a port, which doesn't really concern a lot of network administrators because the fact that these ports are access ports. Without further delay, the command to consolidate both commands is shown below:
switchport host
Once you've done that, make sure that you have spanning-tree bpduguard enable on all interfaces that are configured as portfast or issue spanning-tree portfast bpduguard default under global configuration mode. This way, if someone accidentally put a switch that is capable of sending BPDUs then you'll be protected for the unwanted broadcast storm.
Written by: Andr01d
"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance" - Socrates
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Cisco VoIP - IOS image causing more trouble than fix
You may ask, why are you upgrading the code if the older code is just fine. Well, unfortunately, we also need to bounce (shut/no shut) the voice ports once in a while since it get stuck as well using the older code. However, those trouble tickets don't pop up as often as with this newer code.
Just to give you some new commands to play with, below are the commands to check the status of the voice ports and how to bounce the voice ports.
Router# sh voice port summ
IN OUT
PORT CH SIG-TYPE ADMIN OPER STATUS STATUS EC
=============== == ============ ===== ==== ======== ======== ==
0/1/0 -- e&m-imd up up idle seized y
I omitted a lot of the information but you'll see more if you have more than VIC2-2E/M card installed. This command is very useful for us to check and see the status of the voice ports. This is pretty much equivalent to the show ip interface brief command.
To bounce the voice port, you issue the command below:
Router# config t
Router (config)# voice-port 0/1/0
Router (config-voiceport)# shut
Router (config-voiceport)# no shut
This command is pretty the same as bouncing your Serial or Fast Ethernet interface in your router.
Well, I hope you learn something from this post.
Written by: Andr01d
"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance" - Socrates
Aurora, DEP and you.
The “Aurora” exploit used to access Google’s private network to steal closely-guarded source codes reminded me of a healthy debate I had with one of our big customers last year claiming how "insecure" our application is according to their Anti-Virus vendor. So here we go, read and have fun. I have omitted the names of the parties involved for security purposes.
(Customer’s Security Admin First Name),
I just want to connect with you regarding the Buffer Overflow/Overrun error log you are encountering when using xxxx xxxxx Agent Bridge Integration. One of our developers did his homework and researched on this feature of Xxxx and found a lot of cases posted on the Internet by end-users of the same product encountering a similar issue. I was able to confirm this by doing my own research; it was forwarded to you by my colleague xxxxx.
It seems that this security feature is not 100% compatible to all software. We should not be alarmed when we are getting this error message since our application and xxxxxx.com are secure applications.
Disabling this feature to accommodate xxxxx application on your network will not expose your network to serious security breaches using the Buffer Overflow/Overrun method.
This exploit happens at the software or application layer, the application being xxxx Agent and xxxx Bridge. Those are two separate applications, with separate codes. The attacker needs to go through multiple layers of security before they can accomplish it (see below), unless someone is paying them to work on this, it will take tremendous man hours to accomplish it.
Attacker>Network Layer>OS Layer>Application Layer
To start with, the attacker needs to be able to have an access on your local network to “sniff” this IP traffic. If your network has standard security policies in place, this will not happen. A well placed Firewall or even a simple Router with Access Control Lists will mitigate this risk. Second, once your traffic hits the Public Internet all the way to our servers, our server can detect and acknowledge if the packet has been altered or modified. We have security mechanisms in place built-in on our code to prevent this. Our servers will not reply to a client with an unusual type of request.
And also, every Windows Operating System since Windows XP Service Pack 2 has a built in Data Execution Prevention (DEP) security feature intended to prevent an application or service from executing code from a non-executable memory region. This helps prevent certain exploits that store code via a buffer overflow, DEP was introduced in Windows XP Service Pack 2 and is included in Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 and later,[1] Windows Vista, and Windows Server 2008, and all newer versions of Windows.
Hope these clear things up. On a side-note, a company’s business objectives should dictate a company’s security policy and not the other way around. In your case, if we let this Antivirus feature override xxxx and xxxx, we will not be able to help you with your business goals.
Let me know if there are questions.
Thanks,
Ron
This E-mail ended the healthy debate and I was able to prove that:
- the Anti-virus they are using produces too many false-positives when using web-based applications.
- we secure communication channels from client to our servers, not sure how they secure their network.
- they are being paranoid of being "hacked"; probably watched too much Die Hard 4 and Matrix movies.
- business policies should dictate an organization's security policies, not the other way around.
(P.S. Remember, this E-mail was drafted and sent early last year, where Aurora is still unheard of.)
Thursday, January 21, 2010
IP address [secondary]

Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Catalyst Switch
