[asterisk-dev] [Code Review]: Add a test for verifying when username information can be leaked via differing nat settings

[Terry Wilson]

> On Nov. 21, 2011, 8:50 a.m., Paul Belanger wrote:
> > /asterisk/trunk/configs/http.conf, lines 1-5
> > <https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1590/diff/1/?file=21797#file21797line1>
> >
> >     This is going to affect all tests, we should do like manager.conf.  Disable it first and use include statements to enable.

Actually, this is how we do it for manager.conf. Manager is enabled by default (with a user). It would be weird to to have enabled=no then do a #include with enabled=yes so that you had both settings in there.


> On Nov. 21, 2011, 8:50 a.m., Paul Belanger wrote:
> > /asterisk/trunk/configs/manager.conf, line 3
> > <https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1590/diff/1/?file=21798#file21798line3>
> >
> >     same comment, do we want this enabled for all tests?

It does not hurt to enable it for all tests (it is present in 1.4+) and sending an AMI command and waiting for a response is a common enough thing that it seems like it would be annoying to have to add an include just to enable it.


> On Nov. 21, 2011, 8:50 a.m., Paul Belanger wrote:
> > /asterisk/trunk/lib/python/asterisk/syncami.py, lines 1-2
> > <https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1590/diff/1/?file=21799#file21799line1>
> >
> >     Random though, we could add this functionality into StarPy.

Do you mean add synchronous AMI to starpy or something having to do with the HeaderParser stuff? I'm not sure the SyncAMI stuff meshes particularly well with starpy's existing code since it is both blocking and over HTTP instead of a normal AMI connection.


- Terry


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1590/#review4831
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Nov. 17, 2011, 1:20 p.m., Terry Wilson wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1590/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 17, 2011, 1:20 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Asterisk Developers, Paul Belanger and mjordan.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> This test loops through all combinations of nat=route/no (force_rport/no in 1.8+) for [general] and [peer] in sip.conf, whether or not the incoming request specified ;rport in the Via, and whether request was sent from the same port as the one listed in the Via, for both a valid and an invalid user. The test records when the behavior differs and matches against when we expect that behavior to differ for each version of Asterisk (1.4, 1.6.2, 1.8, 10, trunk). It also uses a Quine-McClusky minimization solver to reduce the list of failures to a function describing the failures. For example:
> On 1.4:
>     (((NOT port_matches_via) AND peer_nat AND (NOT general_nat)) OR ((NOT port_matches_via) AND (NOT peer_nat) AND general_nat))
> and 1.8:
>     (((NOT port_matches_via) AND (NOT rport_specified) AND (NOT peer_nat) AND general_nat) OR ((NOT port_matches_via) AND (NOT rport_specified) AND peer_nat AND (NOT general_nat)))
> 
> As you see, there is an extra term in 1.8 because in 1.8 we honor the ;rport in the Via no matter what, so differing behavior only occurs when a request comes in *not* specifying ;rport. There is no equivalent for nat=route or nat=never in 1.8+ (these values were originally added to work around a bug in old Uniden phone firmware).
> 
> This patch also adds a very small SyncAMI class for synchronously sending AMI requests (over HTTP because it is much simpler to do via HTTP's built-in request/response architecture) and getting back a response. It also modifies the default manager.conf and http.conf files to support the new API. SyncAMI makes it much easier to do things like update a config and reload it over AMI as you don't have to split up what you are doing into a lot of callback functions and you really do want to block execution until they are complete. Normally, I would have done a separate review for SyncAMI, but as this patch requires its use I've left them together for the review.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   /asterisk/trunk/configs/branch-1.4/manager.conf 2750 
>   /asterisk/trunk/configs/http.conf PRE-CREATION 
>   /asterisk/trunk/configs/manager.conf 2750 
>   /asterisk/trunk/lib/python/asterisk/syncami.py PRE-CREATION 
>   /asterisk/trunk/lib/python/qm.py PRE-CREATION 
>   /asterisk/trunk/tests/channels/SIP/nat_supertest/configs/ast1/extensions.conf PRE-CREATION 
>   /asterisk/trunk/tests/channels/SIP/nat_supertest/configs/ast1/sip.conf PRE-CREATION 
>   /asterisk/trunk/tests/channels/SIP/nat_supertest/run-test PRE-CREATION 
>   /asterisk/trunk/tests/channels/SIP/nat_supertest/sipp/register.xml PRE-CREATION 
>   /asterisk/trunk/tests/channels/SIP/nat_supertest/test-config.yaml PRE-CREATION 
>   /asterisk/trunk/tests/channels/SIP/tests.yaml 2750 
> 
> Diff: https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1590/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Tested against 1.4 and 1.8 and have gotten the values I expect back. The nat options for 1.4 and 1.6.2; and 1.8, 10, and trunk are the same, so I expect similar behavior there.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Terry
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20111121/1b9ead75/attachment-0001.htm>