February 2011 - FreeSWITCH-users - FreeSWITCH Mailing Lists

OpenSER interface to FreeSWITCH
by Jason b.a 23 Feb '11

23 Feb '11

Christopher this is same as my scenario ! but how did u use MSCML to control FS!

2 1

SIP SUBSCRIBE for as-feature-event events
by Helmut Kuper 23 Feb '11

23 Feb '11

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello, Snom is supporting subscriptions to as-feature-event Events. Unfortunately FS replys with "Bad Event" to this. Are there plans to support such subscriptions? Maybe the headers and body can be passed to an application? Or the whole thing could be forwared to an application server to work on it. The SIP message looks like this: Session Initiation Protocol Request-Line: SUBSCRIBE sip:2850@a.a.a.a SIP/2.0 Message Header Via: SIP/2.0/UDP b.b.b.b:5060;branch=z9hG4bK-b3v8fu4shagb;rport From: <sip:2850@a.a.a.a>;tag=dq168o7qj9 To: "Helmut Kuper" <sip:2850@a.a.a.a> Call-ID: 3c26705696f0-6ntjya2y7b3s CSeq: 2 SUBSCRIBE Max-Forwards: 70 Contact: <sip:2850@b.b.b.b:5060>;reg-id=1 Event: as-feature-event User-Agent: snom370/8.4.27 Expires: 3600 Content-Type: application/x-as-feature-event+xml Content-Length: 185 Message Body <?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?><SetDoNotDisturb xmlns="http://www.ecma-international.org/standards/ecma-323/csta/ed3"><doNotDisturbOn>true</doNotDisturbOn></SetDoNotDisturb> Best regards Helmut -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1dI6wACgkQ4tZeNddg3dx0LQCdGPIHZWb5tUEaP4SOMl7cWJrE f38AoK1NEd9VeOUJ6Ut+XAyZgS6LdcZz =JLAn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

INVITE DoS Prevention
by Spencer Thomason 23 Feb '11

23 Feb '11

Hi, We run hosted Freeswitch instances in VMs with the internal profile on port 5060 connecting to clients mostly behind NAT and then the external profile connecting to our proxies only. Protecting the external profile its straightforward.. we only allow traffic to/from our proxies at the firewall level. But protecting the internal profile seems to be a bit more difficult because the UACs could be theoretically anywhere on the network. I'm currently using Fail2Ban to prevent brute force registration and INVITEs on auth failures, e.g.: failregex = \[WARNING\] sofia_reg.c:\d+ SIP auth failure $REGISTER$ on sofia profile \'\w+\' for \[.*\] from ip <HOST> \[WARNING\] sofia_reg.c:\d+ SIP auth failure $INVITE$ on sofia profile \'\w+\' for \[.*\] from ip <HOST> My question is, since its part of a normal SIP dialog to challenge the INVITE, is there any way to prevent a possible DoS from just sheer volume of incoming INVITEs on an Internet facing server automatically. I.e., If you block the logged challenge, you'd block all legitimate INVITEs and registrations. Since its UDP traffic I couldn't come up with a way to do it automatically at the iptables level. i.e. number of concurrent connections. Is there some option to just not respond if a client is sending a number of requests over a certain threshold? It might not stop them from sending the traffic but pretty soon they'd get the idea that it wasn't going to go anywhere. My concern is say there are 50 Freeswitch instances on a box (albeit 8 core, 32GB ram, 8 15K raid 10 storage) and someone starts sending thousands of rouge INVITEs to every VM on a physical box that the CPU load from just challenging the incoming INVITEs would create a DoS. We the logs regularly to try to catch people doing this sort of thing and drop them at a router upstream of the core network, but I'd like to have it happen without human intervention. Have I completely over thought this and am missing something obvious? Thanks, Spencer

9 16

Re: [Freeswitch-users] risky hangup
by Madovsky 23 Feb '11

23 Feb '11

Anthony, I think I found the problem (it's not a bug) is FS more sensitive about DTMF packet ? thanks ----- Original Message ----- From: "Madovsky" <infos(a)madovsky.org> To: "FreeSWITCH Users Help" <freeswitch-users(a)lists.freeswitch.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:09 PM Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] risky hangup > yes... > please remind me the pcap command line for linux > and will send to you > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anthony Minessale" <anthony.minessale(a)gmail.com> > To: "FreeSWITCH Users Help" <freeswitch-users(a)lists.freeswitch.org> > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:05 PM > Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] risky hangup > > > Are you saying this is something that is suddenly happening and was not > before? > Can you get a pcap of it? > > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Madovsky <infos(a)madovsky.org> wrote: >> I have this in the extension : >> >> <condition break="always"> >> <action application="answer"/> >> <action application="sleep" data="1000"/> >> <action application="playback" >> data="$${sounds_dir}/nibbleBill/no_more_funds.wav"/> >> <action application="hangup" >> data="OUTGOING_CALL_BARRED"/> >> </condition> >> >> the hangup doesn't respect the end of the wav file. >> it can do it at the start or end or middle of while the playback is >> playing. >> I noticed that since last git and yesterday >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Anthony Minessale" <anthony.minessale(a)gmail.com> >> To: "FreeSWITCH Users Help" <freeswitch-users(a)lists.freeswitch.org> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 12:08 PM >> Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] risky hangup >> >> >>> this is like the 12th email and the exact issue is hard to follow. >>> >>> Are you saying it plays a tts like "you are out of money goodbye" and >>> you don't always hear it all? >>> You probably have a delay? >>> Try adding like sleep 3 seconds after you play the tts. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Madovsky <infos(a)madovsky.org> wrote: >>>> ok apparently I was wrong... >>>> I restarted the machine and the issue is still there :(( >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Madovsky" <infos(a)madovsky.org> >>>> To: "FreeSWITCH Users Help" <freeswitch-users(a)lists.freeswitch.org> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 10:26 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] risky hangup >>>> >>>> >>>>> yes >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "mazilo" <Nabble(a)slickdeals.endjunk.com> >>>>> To: <freeswitch-users(a)lists.freeswitch.org> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 10:16 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] risky hangup >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Madovsky wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> apparently I found the problem, >>>>>>> there were 2 instances of FS running... >>>>>> Hmm ..., what exactly did you mean by instances? I don't suppose you >>>>>> meant >>>>>> instances = processes, right? >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> FreeSWITCH hosted on a Seagate DockStar with OpenWRT. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> View this message in context: >>>>>> http://freeswitch-users.2379917.n2.nabble.com/risky-hangup-tp6054481p605503… >>>>>> Sent from the freeswitch-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list >>>>>> FreeSWITCH-users(a)lists.freeswitch.org >>>>>> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users >>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users >>>>>> http://www.freeswitch.org >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list >>>> FreeSWITCH-users(a)lists.freeswitch.org >>>> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users >>>> UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users >>>> http://www.freeswitch.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Anthony Minessale II >>> >>> FreeSWITCH http://www.freeswitch.org/ >>> ClueCon http://www.cluecon.com/ >>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/FreeSWITCH_wire >>> >>> AIM: anthm >>> MSN:anthony_minessale@hotmail.com >>> GTALK/JABBER/PAYPAL:anthony.minessale@gmail.com >>> IRC: irc.freenode.net #freeswitch >>> >>> FreeSWITCH Developer Conference >>> sip:888@conference.freeswitch.org >>> googletalk:conf+888@conference.freeswitch.org >>> pstn:+19193869900 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list >>> FreeSWITCH-users(a)lists.freeswitch.org >>> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users >>> UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users >>> http://www.freeswitch.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list >> FreeSWITCH-users(a)lists.freeswitch.org >> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users >> UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users >> http://www.freeswitch.org >> > > > > -- > Anthony Minessale II > > FreeSWITCH http://www.freeswitch.org/ > ClueCon http://www.cluecon.com/ > Twitter: http://twitter.com/FreeSWITCH_wire > > AIM: anthm > MSN:anthony_minessale@hotmail.com > GTALK/JABBER/PAYPAL:anthony.minessale@gmail.com > IRC: irc.freenode.net #freeswitch > > FreeSWITCH Developer Conference > sip:888@conference.freeswitch.org > googletalk:conf+888@conference.freeswitch.org > pstn:+19193869900 > > _______________________________________________ > FreeSWITCH-users mailing list > FreeSWITCH-users(a)lists.freeswitch.org > http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users > UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users > http://www.freeswitch.org -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

1 0

Re: [Freeswitch-users] risky hangup
by Madovsky 23 Feb '11

23 Feb '11

ok apparently I was wrong... I restarted the machine and the issue is still there :(( ----- Original Message ----- From: "Madovsky" <infos(a)madovsky.org> To: "FreeSWITCH Users Help" <freeswitch-users(a)lists.freeswitch.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 10:26 PM Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] risky hangup > yes > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "mazilo" <Nabble(a)slickdeals.endjunk.com> > To: <freeswitch-users(a)lists.freeswitch.org> > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 10:16 PM > Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] risky hangup > > >> >> >> Madovsky wrote: >>> >>> apparently I found the problem, >>> there were 2 instances of FS running... >> Hmm ..., what exactly did you mean by instances? I don't suppose you >> meant >> instances = processes, right? >> >> ----- >> FreeSWITCH hosted on a Seagate DockStar with OpenWRT. >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://freeswitch-users.2379917.n2.nabble.com/risky-hangup-tp6054481p605503… >> Sent from the freeswitch-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list >> FreeSWITCH-users(a)lists.freeswitch.org >> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users >> UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users >> http://www.freeswitch.org >

2 4

FreeSWITCH Conference Call Starting Shortly
by Michael Collins 23 Feb '11

23 Feb '11

Hey folks, feel free to hop on! http://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/FS_weekly_2011_02_23 Talk to you shortly, MC

1 0

OpenSER interface to FreeSWITCH
by Jason b.a 23 Feb '11

23 Feb '11

yeh sure i have a SIP endpoints , can the application do the sip handling and have a socket interface with freeswitch in the same time without using OpenSER. in this case i need Sip servelet plugin in my application , is it possible. I went through the outbound event socket , seems to be helpful thx , also i saw the options for using java to connect to freeswitch, i think using ESL , i can build a java IVR application .

4 3

intercom in lua dialplan
by Helmut Kuper 23 Feb '11

23 Feb '11

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello, I try to intercept a call in lua script. For the intercepting extension I do this: if (dialed_ext:len()==6 and dialed_ext:sub(1,2) == "**") then uuid=api:execute("hash", "select/last_caller/"..dialed_ext:sub(3)) if (uuid and uuid:len()> 2) then session:setAutoHangup(false) session:execute("intercept", uuid) return end end This results to a hangup of the intercepting extension while intercepted extension hangs up (completed_elsewhere) and caller/originator's call is connected. FS logs shows this for the intercepting extension: switch_core_state_machine.c:189 sofia/internal_et/8000(a)spklw.x has executed the last dialplan instruction, hanging up. When I use the ACTIONS table like this: if (dialed_ext:len()==6 and dialed_ext:sub(1,2) == "**") then uuid=api:execute("hash", "select/last_caller/"..dialed_ext:sub(3)) if (uuid and uuid:len()> 2) then session:setAutoHangup(false) table.insert(ACTIONS, {"intercept", uuid}) return end end then intercept/pickup works fine. Is there a trick to get it work with "session:execute("intercept", uuid)" ? regards helmut -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk0+8DYACgkQ4tZeNddg3dyKwACeKR4lsxUv3G26pdNp8GGsbWNg /OIAn2EIl2Vq+qibtodGd9vjjLfqKv8s =2fTE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 5

Weird CDR ERROR...
by David Villasmil 23 Feb '11

23 Feb '11

3 3

SIP DoS Prevention - Patch
by jay binks 23 Feb '11

23 Feb '11

check out my patch Ive just posted to jira. http://jira.freeswitch.org/browse/FS-3094 you can subscribe to "Auth" events now - SWITCH_EVENT_AUTH which are generic for Register & Invite ( and any other auth'd packet I guess ) and there is an auth_state which will tell you if its an auth fail or a expire etc.. you can get the to_user, to_host, useragent, sip profile and network_ip Auth Expires also have a Log messages similar to Auth Failures ( fail2ban compatible ) PLEASE guys give this some testing. I only banged this together in a few hours today in my currently sleep deprived state. So im sure its going to have things that can be improved or work better, but at least the bones of it are there now. let me know your thoughts. Jay On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Jmesquita(a)freeswitch.org < jmesquita(a)freeswitch.org> wrote: > Just an idea for the other developers. Wouldn't be cool to have and event > thrown by each module that does authentication so that other application > modules are able to listen in those events and do whatever with it? Some > people might even like to have that running an eel daemon and throw some > snmp traps based on that? > > Just an idea that might be completely ridiculous or might raise some > interest. Events are pretty cheap so there wouldn't be a lot of overhead > involved. > > Regards, > > João Mesquita > > On 21/02/2011, at 07:28, Spencer Thomason <spencer(a)5ninesolutions.com> > wrote: > > > After tinkering with it, I think that might be the best way. The > > iptables method is cool but I'd like to have more dynamic control and > > with Fail2Ban looking at the challenges you could specifically ignore > > certain high traffic IPs and block others. What would be very cool is > > if instead of logging every challenge, a log entry was written if > > there was a high number from a specific IP, then you could decide what > > to do about it with fail2ban, similar to the pike module for opensips > > does. > > > > > > On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:31 AM, covici(a)ccs.covici.com wrote: > > > >> I would change sip auth failure to challenge and then have sufficient > >> times to only block if there are too many challenges in a certain > >> time. > >> I am not even sure the failure works any more in recent gits. > >> > >> Spencer Thomason <spencer(a)5ninesolutions.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Yes, that works great if they respond to the challenge with a failed > >>> auth. But the scenario I'm trying to prevent is if they just send the > >>> INVITE and never respond to the challenge. Fail2Ban will not work as > >>> every endpoint will initially send an INVITE and receive a challenge. > >>> Legit calls will then respond correctly and not be logged as a SIP > >>> auth failure but every call that is challenged will show up as SIP > >>> auth challenge in the logs so there is no regex to differentiate > >>> between legit an non legit traffic. > >>> > >>> Spencer > >>> > >>> On Feb 20, 2011, at 10:39 PM, Ken Rice wrote: > >>> > >>>> Fail2Ban ... This is block an IP with too many failed attempts from > >>>> something like SipVicious pretty quickly > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 2/20/11 11:07 PM, "Spencer Thomason" <spencer(a)5ninesolutions.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> We run hosted Freeswitch instances in VMs with the internal profile > >>>>> on > >>>>> port 5060 connecting to clients mostly behind NAT and then the > >>>>> external profile connecting to our proxies only. Protecting the > >>>>> external profile its straightforward.. we only allow traffic to/ > >>>>> from > >>>>> our proxies at the firewall level. But protecting the internal > >>>>> profile seems to be a bit more difficult because the UACs could be > >>>>> theoretically anywhere on the network. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm currently using Fail2Ban to prevent brute force registration > >>>>> and > >>>>> INVITEs on auth failures, e.g.: > >>>>> failregex = \[WARNING\] sofia_reg.c:\d+ SIP auth failure \ > >>>>> (REGISTER\) > >>>>> on sofia profile \'\w+\' for \[.*\] from ip <HOST> > >>>>> \[WARNING\] sofia_reg.c:\d+ SIP auth failure $INVITE$ > >>>>> on sofia profile \'\w+\' for \[.*\] from ip <HOST> > >>>>> > >>>>> My question is, since its part of a normal SIP dialog to challenge > >>>>> the > >>>>> INVITE, is there any way to prevent a possible DoS from just sheer > >>>>> volume of incoming INVITEs on an Internet facing server > >>>>> automatically. I.e., If you block the logged challenge, you'd > >>>>> block > >>>>> all legitimate INVITEs and registrations. Since its UDP traffic I > >>>>> couldn't come up with a way to do it automatically at the iptables > >>>>> level. i.e. number of concurrent connections. Is there some option > >>>>> to > >>>>> just not respond if a client is sending a number of requests over a > >>>>> certain threshold? It might not stop them from sending the traffic > >>>>> but pretty soon they'd get the idea that it wasn't going to go > >>>>> anywhere. My concern is say there are 50 Freeswitch instances on a > >>>>> box (albeit 8 core, 32GB ram, 8 15K raid 10 storage) and someone > >>>>> starts sending thousands of rouge INVITEs to every VM on a physical > >>>>> box that the CPU load from just challenging the incoming INVITEs > >>>>> would > >>>>> create a DoS. We the logs regularly to try to catch people doing > >>>>> this > >>>>> sort of thing and drop them at a router upstream of the core > >>>>> network, > >>>>> but I'd like to have it happen without human intervention. Have I > >>>>> completely over thought this and am missing something obvious? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Spencer > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list > >>>>> FreeSWITCH-users(a)lists.freeswitch.org > >>>>> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users > >>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE: > http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users > >>>>> http://www.freeswitch.org > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list > >>>> FreeSWITCH-users(a)lists.freeswitch.org > >>>> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users > >>>> UNSUBSCRIBE: > http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users > >>>> http://www.freeswitch.org > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list > >>> FreeSWITCH-users(a)lists.freeswitch.org > >>> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users > >>> UNSUBSCRIBE: > http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users > >>> http://www.freeswitch.org > >> > >> -- > >> Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: > >> How do > >> you spend it? > >> > >> John Covici > >> covici(a)ccs.covici.com > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list > >> FreeSWITCH-users(a)lists.freeswitch.org > >> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users > >> UNSUBSCRIBE: > http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users > >> http://www.freeswitch.org > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > FreeSWITCH-users mailing list > > FreeSWITCH-users(a)lists.freeswitch.org > > http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users > > UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users > > http://www.freeswitch.org > > _______________________________________________ > FreeSWITCH-users mailing list > FreeSWITCH-users(a)lists.freeswitch.org > http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users > UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users > http://www.freeswitch.org > -- Sincerely Jay

2 1