[asterisk-bugs] [JIRA] (ASTERISK-30407) STIR/SHAKEN Not compliant

[Luke Escude (JIRA)]

    [ https://issues.asterisk.org/jira/browse/ASTERISK-30407?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=261253#comment-261253 ] 

Luke Escude edited comment on ASTERISK-30407 at 1/26/23 5:31 PM:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The RFC is a bit lacking, so I'll include the following field order as presented to me by one of the carriers' SIP engineers:

 "attest": 
  "dest":"tn"
  "iat": 
  "orig":"tn":
  "origid":


Apparently that is the correct order - But you wouldn't know it by the RFC's definition....

EDIT: Ah, here is the definition: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8588.html#section-6



was (Author: lukeescude):
The RFC is a bit lacking, so I'll include the following field order as presented to me by one of the carriers' SIP engineers:

 "attest": 
  "dest":"tn"
  "iat": 
  "orig":"tn":
  "origid":


Apparently that is the correct order - But you wouldn't know it by the RFC's definition....

> STIR/SHAKEN Not compliant
> -------------------------
>
>                 Key: ASTERISK-30407
>                 URL: https://issues.asterisk.org/jira/browse/ASTERISK-30407
>             Project: Asterisk
>          Issue Type: Bug
>      Security Level: None
>          Components: Resources/res_stir_shaken
>    Affects Versions: 16.30.0
>            Reporter: Luke Escude
>
> So a number of carriers have starting complaining about how we're signing STIR/SHAKEN stuff, and it turns out the stir_shaken module is indeed not doing it according to the RFC.
> They're complaining about 2 issues:
> 1. The order of the fields is incorrect
> 2. The '+' sign in the phone numbers needs to be removed (they're calling it "canonicalization")
> Here's an example output from stir_shaken.conf:
> {
>   "dest": {
>     "tn": [
>       "+1NPANXXXXXX"
>     ]
>   },
>   "orig": {
>     "tn": "1NPANXXXXXX"
>   },
>   "attest": "A",
>   "origid": "e391c481-510b-46ff-a7d0-4c8fcff2436b",
>   "iat": 167458XXXX
> }
> The field order is definitely noncompliant with the RFC, and I do see the + sign they're referring to, in the dest.tn field.
> Reference: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8225.html#section-9 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)