Features in | 21 |
Level 3
CR | Module | Level | Description | AR400 | AR7x5 | AR7x0S | Rapier i | Rapier w | AT8800- | x90048- | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CR00000503 | PKI | 3 | Some PKI commands (including add pki ldap, create pki enroll, and | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
|
|
| create pki keyupdate) only worked if their parameters were entered in a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| particular order. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| This issue has been resolved. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CR00001106 |
| 3 | The command add fire policy=name rule=number act=allow int=int | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | - | - | - | - | Y |
|
|
| ip=ipadd list=filename would incorrectly be rejected, with an error |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| message stating that list and ip were mutually exclusive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| This issue has been resolved, so that list and ip can be used together in the |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| same firewall rule. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CR00001438 | TACACS+ | 3 | If TACACS+ was used for authentication and the TACACS+ server went | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
|
|
| down during an authentication attempt, the router or switch added the |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| attempted login names to the TACACS+ user list (as displayed in output of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| the show tacplus user command). However, the router or switch correctly |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| did not log users in with those names. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| This issue has been resolved. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CR00002587 | IP Gateway | 3 | Sometimes an incorrect error message was printed if a user tried to enable | - | - | - | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | - | - | - |
|
|
| IP multicast switching on a device that did not support it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| This issue has been resolved. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CR00003354 | Firewall | 3 | The firewall message “Port scan from <source> is underway” was repeated | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | - | - | - | - | Y |
|
|
| more times than messages about other attack events. This could cause |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| confusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| This issue has been resolved. The message is now displayed with the same |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| frequency as other firewall attack event messages. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CR00003356 | Firewall | 3 | The firewall sometimes did not report that an attack had finished until | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | - | - | - | - | Y |
|
|
| several minutes after it actually finished. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| This issue has been resolved. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Version