Which one would you recommend?
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Tony Graziano
wrote:
> Blink is a poor choice. Onsip says it does not support bound or attends
> transfer. If this is the case, it would appear a more properly suit ua is in
> order.
>
> On Feb 5, 2012 8:11 PM, "Roman Gelfand" wrote
Blink is a poor choice. Onsip says it does not support bound or attends
transfer. If this is the case, it would appear a more properly suit ua is
in order.
On Feb 5, 2012 8:11 PM, "Roman Gelfand" wrote:
> The softphone is blink. The intranet is defined correctly.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> On Sun, Fe
The softphone is blink. The intranet is defined correctly.
Thanks again.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Tony Graziano
wrote:
> What is the uA? Is the subnet defined in the intranets?
>
> On Feb 5, 2012 6:06 PM, "Roman Gelfand" wrote:
>>
>> sipx server sits in the dmz.
>>
>> I have configured
What is the uA? Is the subnet defined in the intranets?
On Feb 5, 2012 6:06 PM, "Roman Gelfand" wrote:
> sipx server sits in the dmz.
>
> I have configured auto attendant dial plan using, among other things,
> one of the prompts transfers a call to an extension on the same subnet
> at sipx server
sipx server sits in the dmz.
I have configured auto attendant dial plan using, among other things,
one of the prompts transfers a call to an extension on the same subnet
at sipx server. Specifically, when caller preeses 1, it should get
them to extension 233, UA in dmz.
I have registered a phone
no more clicky clicky?
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Michael Picher wrote:
> Wouldn't that be a welcome thing!
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 3:02 PM, George Niculae wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
>> > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Tony Graziano
>> > wrot
Thanks, I commented. It would be good to have a way for a firewall to
use a sipx hosted blacklist to help alleviate future attacks from the
same address at the edge (i think).
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 3:26 PM, George Niculae wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Michael Picher wrote:
>>
>> N
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Michael Picher wrote:
> Not sure if there is a tracker on it. And no, but that would be a nice
> improvement request.
>
>
http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-9447 is the call rate limit tracker
--
George
--
Come meet us at CoLab @ CSU in March (5th & 6
Wouldn't that be a welcome thing!
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 3:02 PM, George Niculae wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Tony Graziano
> > wrote:
> >> If there are several different changes, should that table allow the
> >> admin to c
Well if Gerald could repost his config that would be a great leg-up...
see:
http://www.mail-archive.com/sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org/msg19311.html
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 10:44 AM, S.K.- G wrote:
> OK, I think I will try to integrate fail2ban with SIPX .. Any “How to“
> recommendations?
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Tony Graziano
> wrote:
>> If there are several different changes, should that table allow the
>> admin to combine them for one scheduled change?
>
> They changes would combine automatically, it's how
>
>> On
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Keith Laidlaw wrote:
> So, 4.6 will have a great rate limiter but temporarily add limiting by
> pfsense or Robert’s iptable rule method. What does fail2ban add to this?
>
>
Creating it's own blacklists automatically of course.
>
>
> Also, does the DoS attack crash
So, 4.6 will have a great rate limiter but temporarily add limiting by
pfsense or Robert's iptable rule method. What does fail2ban add to this?
Also, does the DoS attack crash the two services or is it a design decision
to shut them down when an attack is detected? If the first, has the crash
OK, I think I will try to integrate fail2ban with SIPX .. Any "How to"
recommendations?http://sourceforge.net/projects/fail2ban/files/
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Michael Picher
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 9:13
it's call pfblocker... add the package in the first menu on the left...
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 8:55 AM, S.K.- G wrote:
> Nice!!
>
> Welcome me to the SIP Vicious too L.My CDR record is full of “Failed” trials
> to international numbers .. Any help on how to install/configure the SIPX,
>
Nice!!
Welcome me to the SIP Vicious too :-(.My CDR record is full of "Failed"
trials to international numbers .. Any help on how to install/configure the
SIPX, Country Block Option in pfSense? The gz link doesn't seem to work.
Cheers
Saad
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:si
... and coming in 4.6... just pulled this from the test server in the
lab...
[image: image.png]
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Robert B wrote:
> Keith,
>
> These other solutions that are being recommended are great, but I actually
> found a very simple way that works "well enough" for me *
Keith,
These other solutions that are being recommended are great, but I
actually found a very simple way that works "well enough" for me *so far*...
Change your iptable rule that allows port 5060 to something like the
following:
-A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp -m string -m hashlimit --dport 5060 -j
Gerald,
Your gz file doesn't seem to be in the same place...
Thanks,
Mike
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Gerald Drouillard
wrote:
> On 2/5/2012 12:20 AM, Tony Graziano wrote:
> >
> > Fail2ban requires the firewall use iptables I think.
> >
> >
> You can and should run it on the sipx server.
On 2/5/2012 12:20 AM, Tony Graziano wrote:
>
> Fail2ban requires the firewall use iptables I think.
>
>
You can and should run it on the sipx server.
--
Regards
--
Gerald Drouillard
Technology Architect
Drouillard& Associates, Inc.
http://www.Drouillard.biz
_
On 2/4/2012 11:41 PM, Gerardo Barajas wrote:
> Hi members of the list.
> ¿Is Fail2ban useful in this situation??
Yes
Search the list and you will see how.
--
Regards
--
Gerald Drouillard
Technology Architect
Drouillard& Associates, Inc.
http://www.Drouillard.
21 matches
Mail list logo
