[asterisk-dev] Another IAX2 problem with the latest security fix ...

[Russell Bryant]

Tim Panton wrote:
> I'm not comfortable with this.
> The RFC draft says ACKs are optional.
> 
> (any subsequent fullframe can act as an ACK if it
> has the appropriate sequence number)
> 
> So you can set up a call without using an ACK packet.
> 
> Simplest case is
> a NEW
> b ACCEPT
> a VOICE
> b VOICE
> - off you go.

That is a _very_ good reason why my idea was a bad one.  Thank you for pointing 
that out!

> It makes no sense to have a LAGRQ packet without a call set up .
> Arguably it makes no sense to have a PING without a call.
> 
> For what it is worth, I think it would be better to
> implement the initial 'hack' i.e. don't send LAGRQ  or  PING
> untill the call is set up.
> Then add an additional hack where these two don't have their
> call numbers checked for backwards compatibility.

Agreed.  So, we'll go with my original hack, plus your proposed hack #2 which 
will maintain backwards compatibility, without introducing any unsafe behavior.

Thanks again for the feedback,

-- 
Russell Bryant
Senior Software Engineer
Open Source Team Lead
Digium, Inc.