Hi all, Alert-Info headers are used by both the Page and Intercom features to trigger certain phone types to auto-answer INVITEs. In the case of Polycoms, the phone must be pre-configured with the an Alert-Info string for the feature.
It seems there may be a good reason to keep this string secret, since it can be used to cause phones to auto-answer a call. You don't want hackers to be able to do this. Though, hopefully sipXproxy rejects (or amends) unauthorized INVITEs that contain an Alert-Info header... I ask because the Page and Intercom Alert-Info strings are treated inconsistently in this respect. The Page Alert-Info string is hard-coded to "sipXpage". Also, the Polycom profile generation is hard-coded with configuration to auto-answer at this Alert-Info string. It's always there, regardless of whether any page groups are defined or not. The Intercom Alert-Info string on the other hand is a randomly generated string, such as "A0mJkSQI". Furthermore it is only put into generated profiles when the Polycom is a member of a phone group for which Intercom is enabled. If you enable the Intercom feature, then you need to push the Polycom profiles for it to take effect. (sipXconfig tells you about the services that need to be restarted, but not about the phone profiles that need to be re-generated.) It seems like if there's no need to keep the strings secret, then Intercom should use a hard-coded one so that phone configuration doesn't need to be updated. But if the strings should be kept secret then I don't see the point in hiding one but not the other. Is there a reason for the Page and Intercom Alert-Info strings to be handled so differently? Thanks. -Paul [email protected] _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
