[Users] Re: qop="auth" with uac_auth

Same problem here. As I make intensive use of uac_auth() and need to authenticate against Proxies sending me the qop parameter in their authentication challenge, in the meantime I helped myself by simply commenting out the "goto error" section in modules/uac/auth_hdr.c. I just changed to somewhere around line 215. Sure, that's not the way things should be solved - but at the moment it fits my needs. And as of RFC 2617 I should be fine - not sure about RFC3261. Section 22.4(.8) states that "the 'qop' parameter must unfor- tunately remain optional for clients and servers to receive" - so imo it should be ok. (?) To be sincere I did never REALLY understand this whole qop thingy. Afaik OpenSER isn't able to increment cseq in it's UAC module as this module doesn't have any dialog support. And in my believes that's why the UAC module has been designed to fail if it recieves a challenge containing qop (because it isn't able to do it the right way). Nonetheless with my little "patch" everything "just works": -> UAC module sends an INVITE request -> remote sends it's 407 message, containing nonce and qop (but no cnonce) -> 407 gets acknowledged -> UAC module ignores the qop (as error handling is commented out) and sends a new INVITE request with the correct nonce (and is therefore doing correct digest authentication) but with wrong cseq (eg same cseq as previous INVITE = cseq supplied from client) -> remote party (proxy asking for authentication) accepts my INVITE I'm doing so since AVP support has been added to uac_auth() - see also http://www.openser.org/pipermail/devel/2006-March/002162.html and it worked fine with all versions of OpenSER I compiled since this date. It would be great if (unless cseq incrementation support will once be added to UAC) upstream sources could comment out this section (as I showed above). I don't see any grave issues in doing so - and it would probably help people who need this feature. Would such a modification be an option for OpenSER 1.2? You could also add an optional swich like Please let me know if you like my proposal or if I'm talking bullshit :) Kind regards, Thomas Gelf Andreas Heise schrieb: