I'm working on migration of my kamailio.cfg
from v1.4 to 3.1 and stuck
with weird problem:
0(25026) ERROR: auth_db [authdb_mod.c:236]: empty parameter 1 not
allowed 0(25026) ERROR:<core> [route.c:1161]: fixing failed (code=-1) at
cfg:/usr/local/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg.31:433
0(25026) ERROR:<core> [route.c:1161]: fixing failed (code=-1) at
cfg:/usr/local/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg.31:438
0(25026) ERROR:<core> [route.c:1161]: fixing failed (code=-1) at
cfg:/usr/local/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg.31:445
0(25026) ERROR:<core> [route.c:1161]: fixing failed (code=-1) at
cfg:/usr/local/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg.31:445
0(25026) ERROR:<core> [route.c:1161]: fixing failed (code=-1) at
cfg:/usr/local/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg.31:445
0(25026) ERROR:<core> [route.c:1161]: fixing failed (code=-1) at
cfg:/usr/local/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg.31:451
ERROR: error -1 while trying to fix configuration
The complained lines are calls like
proxy_authorize("", "subscriber")
proxy_challenge("", "0")
According to auth_db module documentation the "realm" parameter can be an
empty string, but code in modules_k/auth_db/authdb_mod.c line 236
explicitly checks that parameter value must be non-empty.
On Sunday 24 October 2010, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
On 10/24/10 10:12 PM, Sergey Okhapkin wrote:
Correction - auth module is merged in 3.1, but
auth_db modules are
still separate.
yes, only auth modules were merged, like I wrote.
auth_db functions use return codes and API functions from auth module.
Cheers,
Daniel
> On Sunday 24 October 2010, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
>> probably omitted by mistake, but please keep the mailing list cc-ed.
>>
>> On 10/24/10 3:38 PM, Sergey Okhapkin wrote:
>>> Note that I check return code of www_authorize to be -1 (invalid
>>> user) and block IP in this case only. Other error codes should not
>>> block the IP address.
>>
>> This one remembered me that in 3.1 we merged the auth modules and we
>> used the one coming from ser because it has better nonce protection
>> and other enhancements than kamailio version.
>>
>> That means the return codes have changed, the new ones are listed now
>> at:
>>
http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules_k/auth_db.html#id27530
>>68
>>
>> Added also note in migration wiki page:
>>
http://www.kamailio.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/install:3.0.x-to-3.1.0#modul
>>es _k_ auth_db
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel
>>
>>> On Sunday 24 October 2010, you wrote:
>>>> I watched live an attack on
voipuser.org while running 3.1 before
>>>> release. It lasted 18 hours. I didn't want to ban it because was
>>>> useful for testing and see if it reveals any weak. In most of the
>>>> cases it hit pike module. I got some data and plan to make an
>>>> article about it soon.
>>>>
>>>> Anyhow, as a result of that, default config for kamailio has a
>>>> section for detecting and banning such "bad" IPs, using pike
to
>>>> detect floods and htable to keep it blocked. Search WITH_ANTIFLOOD
>>>> directive. It can be enhanced like you pointed here, so if the
>>>> authorize fails, add the IP in the banned list stored in htable.
>>>>
>>>> Using fail2ban together with IP tables has the advantage of dropping
>>>> the packets before getting to application and eating cpu, although
>>>> in the case of
voipuser.org the cpu was not affected much - the rate
>>>> was 170-200 requests per second.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>> On 10/24/10 3:06 PM, Sergey Okhapkin wrote:
>>>>> I'm second for fail2ban. I block IP addresses with failed
>>>>> registration attempts for 1 hour. Here is my setup:
>>>>>
>>>>> kamailio.cfg:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (is_method("REGISTER")) {
>>>>> if(www_authorize("",
"subscriber")< 0) {
>>>>> if($rc == -1) {
>>>>> xlog("L_INFO","Invalid
username from
>>>>> $proto:$si:$sp\n");
sl_send_reply("200","OK");
>>>>> } else
>>>>> www_challenge("", "0");
>>>>> exit;
>>>>> }
>>>>> ....
>>>>>
>>>>> /etc/fail2ban/filter.d/openser.conf:
>>>>>
>>>>> [Definition]
>>>>> #_daemon = kamailio
>>>>> failregex = Invalid username from ...:<HOST>:
>>>>>
>>>>> /etc/fail2ban/jail.conf:
>>>>>
>>>>> findtime = 600
>>>>>
>>>>> [openser-iptables]
>>>>> enabled = true
>>>>> filter = openser
>>>>> action = iptables-allports[name=OPENSER, protocol=all]
>>>>> logpath = /var/log/openser/openser # Replace with your sr log
>>>>> location maxretry = 10
>>>>> bantime = 3600
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday 24 October 2010, Uriel Rozenbaum wrote:
>>>>>> Juha,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we should be specially careful about black-lists. We
>>>>>> receive many of these attacks in a per-day basis and a lot of
them
>>>>>> are from residential addresses or university, so I'm guessing
some
>>>>>> kind of worm or trojan performing the attack from various IPs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have the time, try fail2ban deamon. It can relate some
>>>>>> brute-force events and act accordingly blocking an IP on
iptables,
>>>>>> executing a script. You send to "jail" those addresses
for a
>>>>>> period of time, then you can get them out again; and of course
you
>>>>>> can manually revert.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Last, as a description of the attacks I saw, first it runs an
NMAP
>>>>>> like scan checking which IPs answer from 5060, then it starts
>>>>>> sending registers (usually asterisk answers 404 if the user does
>>>>>> not exist), then when the proxy challenges, it interprets the
user
>>>>>> is found and starts making dictionary attacks on the password
>>>>>> (1234, admin, and so on). Keep safe complicated passwords, make
>>>>>> kamailio challenge everything and you'll be safe. and again,
>>>>>> fail2ban is a pretty good solution for brute force.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This might help you finding a solution for your attacks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Uriel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Juha
Heinanen<jh(a)tutpro.com>
>>>>>>> while doing some
tests, i noticed that one of my proxies started
>>>>>>> to receive lots of register requests with different user
names
>>>>>>> starting from a letter. there was also invite attempts in
the
>>>>>>> logs. they came from ip 202.82.16.99 which according to
>>>>>>> traceroute is somewhere in china.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> should we start publishing a black list of these attack ip
>>>>>>> addresses?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- juha
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users
>>>>>>> mailing list sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
>>>>>>>
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users
mailing
>>>>>> list sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
>>>>>>
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing
>>>>> list sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
>>>>>
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
> sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
>
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org