- 02 7月, 2014 5 次提交
-
-
由 Anthony Minessale 提交于
-
由 Travis Cross 提交于
-
由 Anthony Minessale 提交于
-
由 Jeff Lenk 提交于
-
由 Anthony Minessale 提交于
-
- 01 7月, 2014 4 次提交
-
-
由 Anthony Minessale 提交于
-
由 Anthony Minessale 提交于
-
由 Anthony Minessale 提交于
-
由 Anthony Minessale 提交于
-
- 30 6月, 2014 10 次提交
-
-
由 Chris Rienzo 提交于
-
由 jfigus 提交于
-
由 jfigus 提交于
Set the algorithm member on cipher_t when allocating AES crypto instance. Apply same fix to NULL cipher.
-
由 Travis Cross 提交于
In `srtp_unprotect_rtcp()` we are not validating that the packet length is as long as the minimum required. This would cause `enc_octet_len` to underflow, which would cause us to try to decrypt data past the end of the packet in memory -- a buffer over-read and buffer overflow. In `srtp_protect_rtcp()`, we were similarly not validating the packet length. Here we were also polluting the address of the SRTCP encrypted flag and index (the `trailer`), causing us to write one word to a bogus memory address before getting to the encryption where we would also overflow. In this commit we add checks to appropriately validate the RTCP/SRTCP packet lengths. `srtp_unprotect_rtcp_aead()` (but not protect) did correctly validate the packet length; this check would now be redundant as the check in `srtcp_unprotect_rtcp()` will also run first, so it has been removed.
-
由 Travis Cross 提交于
In the defined AEAD modes, SRTP packets must always be encrypted and authenticated, but SRTCP packets may be only authenticated. It's possible, therefore, for us to end up in `srtp_protect_aead()` without the `sec_serv_conf` bit being set. We should just ignore this and encrypt the RTP packet anyway. What we are doing instead is encrypting the packet anyway, but setting `enc_start` to NULL first. This causes `aad_len` to underflow which will cause us to over-read in `cipher_set_aad()`. If we could get past that, we would try to read and write memory starting at 0x0 down in `cipher_encrypt()`. This commit causes us to not check the `sec_serv_conf` bit and never set `enc_start` to NULL in `srtp_protect_aead()`. `srtp_unprotect_aead()` does not contain a similar error.
-
由 Travis Cross 提交于
When computing the start address of the RTP data to encrypt or SRTP data to decrypt (`enc_start`), we are using `hdr->cc` (the CSRC count), which is untrusted data from the packet, and the length field of an RTP header extension, which is also untrusted and unchecked data from the packet. This value then pollutes our calculation of how much data we'll be encrypting or decrypting (`enc_octet_len`), possibly causing us to underflow. We'll then call `cipher_encrypt()` or `cipher_decrypt()` with these two values, causing us to read from and write to arbitrary addresses in memory. (In the AEAD functions, we'd also pollute `aad_len`, which would cause us to read undefined memory in `cipher_set_aad`.) This commit adds checks to verify that the `enc_start` we calculate is sane based on the actual packet length.
-
由 Travis Cross 提交于
-
由 Anthony Minessale 提交于
-
由 Anthony Minessale 提交于
-
由 Anthony Minessale 提交于
-
- 29 6月, 2014 7 次提交
-
-
由 Anthony Minessale 提交于
-
由 Anthony Minessale 提交于
-
由 Travis Cross 提交于
We're checking whether we've hit the warning threshold before checking whether we should just end the call. This causes an off-by-one error where we take one SRTP error more than intended. This commit reverses the order of the tests.
-
由 Anthony Minessale 提交于
-
由 Anthony Minessale 提交于
-
由 Anthony Minessale 提交于
-
由 Anthony Minessale 提交于
-
- 28 6月, 2014 6 次提交
-
-
由 Steve Underwood 提交于
-
由 Steve Underwood 提交于
-
由 Travis Cross 提交于
-
由 Travis Cross 提交于
In a carrier interop we saw the call get killed for SRTP failures during a reinvite. We're wondering if the SRTP errors may have been transitory and if it may have recovered after a few more packets. It's debatable whether we should kill calls at all for SRTP auth failures; semantically the right thing to do when a MAC fails is to ignore the packet completely. So raising this limit to 100 packets shouldn't do any harm. With this change we still warn at 10 errors and every 10 errors thereafter.
-
由 Travis Cross 提交于
We hangup the channel after receiving 10 SRTP packets in a row with a bad auth tag or that are replayed. Prior to this commit we were indicating a normal clearing. When doing interop and looking first at packet traces, this made freeswitch's behavior look surprising. With this commit we'll indicate more loudly what's happening.
-
由 Travis Cross 提交于
switch_rtp_set_invalid_handler has been misspelled as switch_rtp_set_invald_handler going all the way back to the beginning. So while it's possible that someone somewhere could be relying on this misspelling, I think it's more likely that no one has used it much and that's why it wasn't spotted. We don't even use it ourselves anywhere anymore. Introduced in commit: 828e0371
-
- 27 6月, 2014 2 次提交
-
-
由 Travis Cross 提交于
-
由 Travis Cross 提交于
mod_sofia's parameter shutdown-on-fail now accepts the value "reincarnate-now". This will cause the switch to exit immediately with a non-zero exit code so that the supervisor can recover the switch. For this to work you have to pass in -reincarnate or -reincarnate-reexec to freeswitch.
-
- 26 6月, 2014 2 次提交
-
-
由 Travis Cross 提交于
This is the result of auditing each mod_sofia profile parameter to ensure that it can be unset or reset after being set. One use-case for this being done correctly is so a later parameter in a configuration file can reliably override an earlier one, which is useful for setups with layered include files.
-
由 Travis Cross 提交于
We were leaking the string values of apply-candidate-acl parameters.
-
- 25 6月, 2014 4 次提交
-
-
由 Travis Cross 提交于
In UNIX, text files by definition end with a newline.
-
由 Travis Cross 提交于
This commit allows you to set a `log-file` string parameter in a format_cdr profile. This string is a template that may (and should!) contain variables. This template will be expanded and used as the file name of the CDR to be written. This parameter should contain only the template for the file name itself; the path is relative to the `log-dir`.
-
由 Travis Cross 提交于
Previously if send-display-update was set to false we would also remove UPDATE from our Allow: headers. This is unnecessary. The UPDATE message is useful in SIP transactions even if we're not sending display updates. With this commit, we add a new boolean profile flag, allow-update. If set to true we'll send Allow: UPDATE. If set to false, we will not. If there is a conflict with another setting that requires UPDATE support, the allow-update parameter will win and a warning will be printed. ref: RFC 3311
-
由 Anthony Minessale 提交于
-