[asterisk-bugs] [Asterisk 0016299]: [patch] pedantic sip checking needed to generate valid messages (but broken)
Asterisk Bug Tracker
noreply at bugs.digium.com
Wed Dec 23 03:48:14 CST 2009
A NOTE has been added to this issue.
======================================================================
https://issues.asterisk.org/view.php?id=16299
======================================================================
Reported By: wdoekes
Assigned To: dvossel
======================================================================
Project: Asterisk
Issue ID: 16299
Category: Channels/chan_sip/General
Reproducibility: always
Severity: trivial
Priority: normal
Status: acknowledged
Target Version: 1.6.1.13
Asterisk Version: SVN
JIRA: SWP-451
Regression: No
Reviewboard Link:
SVN Branch (only for SVN checkouts, not tarball releases): trunk
SVN Revision (number only!):
Request Review:
======================================================================
Date Submitted: 2009-11-21 15:03 CST
Last Modified: 2009-12-23 03:48 CST
======================================================================
Summary: [patch] pedantic sip checking needed to generate
valid messages (but broken)
Description:
In function 'initreqprep' in channels/chan_sip.c, the following code can be
found:
if (sip_cfg.pedanticsipchecking) {
ast_uri_encode(n, tmp_n, sizeof(tmp_n), 0);
n = tmp_n;
ast_uri_encode(l, tmp_l, sizeof(tmp_l), 0);
l = tmp_l;
}
<...snip...>
snprintf(from, sizeof(from), "\"%s\" <sip:%s@%s>;tag=%s", n, l, d,
p->tag);
The function ast_uri_encode encodes chars < 32 and > 127 -- perhaps one
should replace that with ((signed char)*ptr < 32) ;-) -- as %HH hex
escapes.
A couple of problems (all minor):
- ast_uri_encode forgets to escape % and 0x7F (RFC2396 2.4.2 and 2.4.3)
- ast_uri_encode does not escape <, >, @ and some other characters that
'l' would've liked to be escaped
- 'n' is not supposed to be hex-escaped (RFC4475 3.1.1.5 writes """The
display name portion of the To and From header fields is "%Z%45". Note that
this is not the same as %ZE.""")
- 'n' does however like the double-quote to be escaped, by a backslash
- ast_uri_decode is called on entire messages, not on already broken up
parts
Browsing through chan_sip.c, I see pedanticsipchecking used in these
cases:
- allow blanks between the header key and the colon
- allow multiline sip headers
- compare the from-tag/to-tag/branches as well instead of only the
call-id
- check that a packet really is for us (handle_incoming)
- encode/decode reserved characters
In my humble opinion, I don't think creating valid output (correctly
encoding illegal characters) should be enabled only by a flag that is
reported as being 'slow'. And, not as relevant to me in this case, but
decoding valid hex-escapes from peers does not sound like too much to ask,
either.
What to do?
- I can easily write a patch that fixes my minor issue: always -- not
dependent on the pedanticsipchecking -- run a s/"/\\"/g (instead of
ast_uri_encode) on the name part in the From.
- I can also easily fix ast_uri_encode to escape %, 0x7f and the others as
mentioned in RFC2396 2.4.3.
- Fixing all ast_uri_decode to operate first after the data has been
broken up is a bit more tedious, so I can't promise I'll do that.
Regards,
Walter Doekes
OSSO B.V.
======================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(0115714) oej (manager) - 2009-12-23 03:48
https://issues.asterisk.org/view.php?id=16299#c115714
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, we can do better than that. IAX2 now is standardized to UTF8, so
Asterisk should in fact support UTF8 natively, but this affects all CDR
drivers, logging channels and will be a huge task to get right.
I proposed earlier a new field in the caller_id structure called
cid_name_utf8 (I believe the branch still exists) but got arguments that
this conversion could be handled automatically. I don't think so.
Converting from Asian character sets to ASCII is not an automatic
procedure. ANd putting '?' in personal names is not a good solution, if
there are better solutions. People care about their names.
Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
======================================================================
2009-12-23 03:48 oej Note Added: 0115714
======================================================================
More information about the asterisk-bugs
mailing list