Mark, There’s a module in Kamailio for uuid which would be generated by kamailio and may be useful in your needs. You may need the additional step of correlating the uuid to the call-I’d, but should be better prevention of injection type issues.
-- Fred direct/sms +1 (336) 439-3733 > On Feb 13, 2020, at 4:57 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hello, > > there are many things that can go wrong if a bad actor can forge sip > messages. That's why the call has to be authenticated/authorized in the > first place (either user/password or some other trusted relationship by > IP, certificate, ...). > > Now if a trusted actor tries to do bad things, then it is harder to > prevent, but once discovered, the identity is known and it can be > eventually published in a way or another (by laws and the commercial > agreement). > > Normally, the call-id should be randomly generated, with very low > chances of overlapping during the same time frame of active call. If > rtpengine is adding its own random part to file names, then the risk of > overwriting later is also very low. > > The dialog is identified by call-id, from tag (set by caller) and to tag > (set by callee), so in this case both caller and callee have to be bad > actors. > > But in many cases call-id is used alone as a key. Adding the from tag is > quite useless, because is set by the same UA, so if it wants to send > same call-id, can do the same with from tag. Then the to-tag is set by > the called side and during the call initiations, there can be many > outgoing branches, so during the 1xx phase there can be a couple of > to-tags flowing around. So if something needs to be stored in the early > phase, the to-tag of the to-be-answered call is not yet know. > > Rejecting new calls having the same callid as another recent one could > be safety check to plug if you are really concerned and you don't trust > completely who is making the call. You can easily use a htable for that, > to cache used call-ids and block new calls with same value. > > Cheers, > Daniel > >> On 13.02.20 10:07, Mark Boyce wrote: >> Hi all >> >> Over coffee we’ve been discussing the uniqueness and safety of call-id this >> morning. Lots of things like RTPEngine recording use call-id to generate >> filenames (yes it does escape them first :-). Not to mention dialog tracking >> (also uses from/to tags) etc. >> >> Which got us thinking. As call-id is determined by the first SIP packet >> that normally comes from a UA, should we care if this UA was broken or worse >> malicious? >> >> What would happen if they were repeated? For example we may struggle to >> determine a recordings owner in RTPEngine (file name format is >> callid+random.wav). >> >> For security should we be rejecting requests where we’ve seen the call-id >> before? >> >> >> All theoretical over coffee, as it was that or start working! >> >> Just wondering what peoples thoughts were? >> >> Cheers >> Mark >> _______________________________________________ >> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >> [email protected] >> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users > > -- > Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com > www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda > Kamailio Advanced Training - March 9-11, 2020, Berlin - www.asipto.com > Kamailio World Conference - April 27-29, 2020, in Berlin -- > www.kamailioworld.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List > [email protected] > https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List [email protected] https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
