drop it buddy. potential risk for DOS. nasty guy will keep sending such dirty requests and you will be busy responding 400 Bad Request being so humble. dont be so polite!!! Good transactions bring money not dirty transactions. v.
From: Marco Ambu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: SIP-implementors mailing list <[email protected]> Subject: [Sip-implementors] sip torture tests Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 12:13:13 +0200 Hi, trying to satisfy the tests found in http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-torture-tests-09.txt, I found a problems that I try to summarize here, hoping you can help me. 3.1.2.1. Extraneous header field separators torture test: badinv01 ... Contact: \"Joe\" <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;;;; // error: empty header parameters Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.15;;,;,, // error: empty header parameters, empty vias ... The draft says: "This message is syntactically invalid. An element receiving this request should respond with a 400 Bad Request error." How can the response be sent if the top via header of the request is invalid (the response must be sent to the top via)? A similar problem arises when the 400 response should be created for missing or multiple mandatory headers (CSeq, Call-ID, To, From) in the request received. What should be the response if the Route or Record-Route (not mandatory) headers are malformed in the received request? Marco Ambu Abbeynet s.p.a. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
