That article mentions a pre-installed telnet server including accounts that can be started with the right command send over TCP. Whereas here, it's apparently a typical buffer overflow resulting in arbitrary (but BYOT (bring your own Telnet)) code execution.
Sure, maybe Cisco is just better at disguising their backdoors for plausible deniability. But with what's known, intent seems far more likely in yesterday's case than this.
I know it comes to my mind every time I see the string "Cisco zero day", whether or not it seems likely in any particular case.
1) CISCO's well documented efforts to intentinally put them into place in the canonical sense of the word (for LI): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22251965
2) it is a well-known feature that is used to change the administrative distance of eBGP in order for an interior gateway routing protocol (IGP) to take precedence over an eBGP route. https://community.cisco.com/t5/networking-documents/what-is-...