Re: [sipx-users] Session timer refresh

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: SipXecs Forum In-Reply-To: <2010050102.ga5...@kit.dm3.us> X-FUDforum: 08063afcdd00a6e76393c5b9527381e8 <54842> Message-ID: I am seeing something similar to this. However the ITSP is responding with a

Re: [sipx-users] session expiry

Actually... Sipx is receiving back a Require: timer header. But seems to be ignoring it, any thoughts would be appreciated. Cheers, Kris From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Kris Amy Sent: Tuesday, 30 November 2010 5:15 PM To

Re: [sipx-users] session expiry

Hi All, Please ignore. Found this link http://forum.sipfoundry.org/index.php?t=tree&th=14750&S=e2dbb4c4b44c81a1b206579d64510bd0#page_top Cheers, Kris From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Kris Amy Sent: Tuesday, 30 Novembe

[sipx-users] session expiry

Hi all, It would seem that sipx is not abiding by the RFC for session-expire and refresh timer. I currently have Session Timer Interval set to 180. According to the RFC the http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4028#section-10 Similarly, if the side not performing refreshes does not receive a sessi

Re: [sipx-users] offlist Re: security in depth: protecting sipx from dos/toll fraud

On 1.23 using snort When I finishing with 2.0 I hope inline. The snort forum said it hadn't been done yet but I haven't looked to see if it was updated yet. Tony Graziano, Manager Telephone: 434.984.8430 Fax: 434.984.8431 Email: tgrazi...@myitdepartment.net LAN/Tele

Re: [sipx-users] offlist Re: security in depth: protecting sipx from dos/toll fraud

On 11/29/10 3:32 PM, Tony Graziano wrote: > * Certified SNORT Integrator go look at www.snort.org. there are only (about 13?) certified snort integrators. we are one of them :-) some day, I will get to know enough about pfsense. you using snort->pfsense for blocking? or actually repla

Re: [sipx-users] offlist Re: security in depth: protecting sipx from dos/toll fraud

Just on 1.2.3 right now. Seeing the limitations and trying to see how I can add voip block lists as a snort rule somehow in @fsense 2.0. On 11/29/10, Michael Scheidell wrote: > On 11/29/10 2:55 PM, Tony Graziano wrote: >> Yes > so, you are using the experimental pfsense 2.0? with snort inline? >

Re: [sipx-users] Fwd: SOAP API help?

I'll come back to this - Here is a quick 5 minute search on what we are doing with soap: See if this gets you anywhere Also in php.ini - I have this: extension=php_soap.dll [soap] ; Enables or disables WSDL caching feature. soap.wsdl_cache_enabled=1 ; Sets the directory name where SOAP extensi

[sipx-users] offlist Re: security in depth: protecting sipx from dos/toll fraud

On 11/29/10 2:55 PM, Tony Graziano wrote: Yes so, you are using the experimental pfsense 2.0? with snort inline? (2.8.6 I think) -- Michael Scheidell, CTO o: 561-999-5000 d: 561-948-2259 ISN: 1259*1300 >*| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation * Certified SNORT Integrator * 2008-9 Hot Co

Re: [sipx-users] security in depth: protecting sipx from dos/toll fraud

Yes Tony Graziano, Manager Telephone: 434.984.8430 Fax: 434.984.8431 Email: tgrazi...@myitdepartment.net LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk: Telephone: 434.984.8426 Fax: 434.984.8427 Helpdesk Contract Customers: http://www.myitdepartment.net/gethelp/

Re: [sipx-users] security in depth: protecting sipx from dos/toll fraud

On 11/29/10 2:51 PM, Tony Graziano wrote: so I've begun using snort inline with voip.rules, you doing that with pfsense? -- Michael Scheidell, CTO o: 561-999-5000 d: 561-948-2259 ISN: 1259*1300 >*| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation * Certified SNORT Integrator * 2008-9 Hot Company Aw

Re: [sipx-users] security in depth: protecting sipx from dos/toll fraud

I think the object of the one I sent was to use an active block list to prevent the attack instead of adding it after one had started. I follow this stuff closely enough to see the attacks are now stateless and are masquerading as "Asterisk PBX" in the user agent string, so I've begun using snort

Re: [sipx-users] OJO Phones

Sorry about this. It turns out it is a proprietary voip solution which requires the use of their service. On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Roman Gelfand wrote: > Has anyone tried OJO phones with sipx?  If yes, how did it work out? > > Thanks in advance > _

Re: [sipx-users] Call routing based on Caller ID?

Not at this time. Depending on who your ITSP is, it might be possible to use a blacklist there. On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Burden, Mike wrote: > Good morning, > > > > Is there a way to route inbound calls based on the Caller ID from the > inbound call? I’ve been digging through the Wiki

[sipx-users] Call routing based on Caller ID?

Good morning, Is there a way to route inbound calls based on the Caller ID from the inbound call? I've been digging through the Wiki and through history of this discussion group, but I'm coming up empty. Two examples of how this might be useful would be routing calls from a Customer to that

Re: [sipx-users] security in depth: protecting sipx from dos/toll fraud

Hey, I see part two, which I had not seen the other day :). On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 01:17:59 -0500, Tony Graziano wrote: > If you read my blog example (which you did), you'll see I gave you the >  > example already. >  > Tony Graziano, Manager > Telephone: 434.984.8430 > F

Re: [sipx-users] security in depth: protecting sipx from dos/toll fraud

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 01:17:59 -0500, Tony Graziano wrote: > If you read my blog example (which you did), you'll see I gave you the > example already. Yes, I have, just wondered if there are some other things that can (or should) be done. >  > Tony Graziano, Manager > 

Re: [sipx-users] Polycom Firmware levels

OK, now that I've finally got sipXecs updated from 4.0.4 to 4.2.1, it sounds like I should be updating my IP550 and IP650 phones from 3.1.3 to 3.2.1, right? Mike Burden [cid:image002.gif@01CB8FAB.AE265B40] Lynk Systems, Inc e-mail: m...@lynk.com Phone: 616-532-4985

Re: [sipx-users] Polycom Firmware levels

Am I missing something, or do the 3.1.x and 3.2.x firmware levels not even appear on that? I'm really confused now! Mike Burden [cid:image002.gif@01CB8FAB.55FDFF40] Lynk Systems, Inc e-mail: m...@lynk.com Phone: 616-532-4985 From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfou

Re: [sipx-users] Polycom Firmware levels

On 11/29/10 9:32 AM, Burden, Mike wrote: I'm looking at the Polycom Hardware Compatibility List (http://wiki.sipfoundry.org/display/sipXecs/Polycom+Hardware+Compatibility+List) If I read this right, sipXecs 4.2.x supports 3.2.3 firmware on Polycom IP650 phones, but not on Polycom IP550 phones?

Re: [sipx-users] Polycom Firmware levels

The firmware compatibility from the mfr is the sure thing to look at. http://downloads.polycom.com/voice/voip/sip_sw_releases_matrix.html however 3.2.3 is broken, 3.3.x is very different and not supported from sipxconfig yet. yo

[sipx-users] Polycom Firmware levels

I'm looking at the Polycom Hardware Compatibility List (http://wiki.sipfoundry.org/display/sipXecs/Polycom+Hardware+Compatibility+List) If I read this right, sipXecs 4.2.x supports 3.2.3 firmware on Polycom IP650 phones, but not on Polycom IP550 phones? I had thought that the IP650 and IP550 ph

Re: [sipx-users] security in depth: protecting sipx from dos/toll fraud

On 11/29/2010 7:30 AM, Tony Graziano wrote: > Why would it be if the remote connection was stateless? Off the top of my head, I am not sure. It may be how the program was written in this case. Just like the other person in the site I quoted earlier, the DROPs did not seem to work in a timely f

[sipx-users] Polycom Firmware levels

I'm looking at the Polycom Hardware Compatibility List (http://wiki.sipfoundry.org/display/sipXecs/Polycom+Hardware+Compatibility+List) If I read this right, sipXecs 4.2.x supports 3.2.3 firmware on Polycom IP650 phones, but not on Polycom IP550 phones? I had thought that the IP650 and IP550 ph

[sipx-users] OJO Phones

Has anyone tried OJO phones with sipx? If yes, how did it work out? Thanks in advance ___ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

[sipx-users] SBC for video

We want to be able to use our vico systems for vico's with external companies. What would be the best approach? We have a dual layer firewall (so SipX on the inside, FW, DMZ, FW, Internet). Use a hardware SBC in the DMZ that supports Video, Sip and H.323 ? Use a separate SipX as SBC in the DMZ? .

Re: [sipx-users] ENUM not working

In registrar, advanced, do you have your fields populated? Do you have ISN enabled? Do you have a private sbc or are you using sipxbridge? Tony Graziano, Manager Telephone: 434.984.8430 Fax: 434.984.8431 Email: tgrazi...@myitdepartment.net LAN/Telephony/Security and C

[sipx-users] ENUM not working

Hi, Just trying to call some numbers via internet calling. I'm using a private ENUM tree, but the proxy responds "404 not found". In the sipregistrar.log I've found the following: "2010-11-29T12:28:00.900869Z":21:SIP:WARNING:sipx1.unimore.it:SipRedirectServer-17:B62FAB90:SipRegistrar:"[160-ENUM

Re: [sipx-users] security in depth: protecting sipx from dos/toll fraud

Why would it be if the remote connection was stateless? Tony Graziano, Manager Telephone: 434.984.8430 Fax: 434.984.8431 Email: tgrazi...@myitdepartment.net LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk: Telephone: 434.984.8426 Fax: 434.984.8427 Helpdesk Contra

Re: [sipx-users] security in depth: protecting sipx from dos/toll fraud

On 11/29/2010 5:44 AM, Tony Graziano wrote: wget -qO - http://www.infiltrated.net/voipabuse/addresses.txt |\ awk '{print "iptables -A INPUT -s "$1" -j DROP"}' According to my experience (and others) it may be better to use REJECT is the attack is under way. -- Regards

Re: [sipx-users] security in depth: protecting sipx from dos/toll fraud

wget -qO - http://www.infiltrated.net/voipabuse/addresses.txt |\ awk '{print "iptables -A INPUT -s "$1" -j DROP"}' On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Gerald Drouillard wrote: > On 10/15/2010 12:08 PM, Gerald Drouillard wrote: > > I forget where I got the idea for this but you may want to try some