GopalPatel1989 / siphon

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/siphon
0 stars 0 forks source link

Auth. name does not work in Siphon 3.9.2 #489

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Set Username to Caller id i.e. 0404963567
2. Set Auth. name to account name
3. Finish settings

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
In Keypad it says then as status "Unavailable" instead of "Available".

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
Siphon 3.9.2 on iOS 4.2.1

Please provide any additional information below.
Im using Betamax/Poivy. If I set the Username to the account name it is 
working, but for the person which I call no caller information is submitted, so 
I am displayed as Unknown. It seems that the Auth. name setting is completely 
ignored. In previous versions of Siphon on iOS 4.0 it worked correctly, so 
please make it working correctly again.

PS: Thanks for this great software, I like it very much!

Original issue reported on code.google.com by icke2002...@gmail.com on 5 Mar 2011 at 6:29

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
This issue will be fixed in 3.9.3

Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com on 5 Mar 2011 at 11:38

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
3.9.3 release, you can update

Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com on 10 Mar 2011 at 11:23

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
Unfortunately the fix in Siphon 3.9.3 didn't work for me. It still says as 
status "Unavailable" and if I try to call a number nonetheless I get the error 
"forbidden". But something changed indeed, in version 3.9.2 it has made no 
difference what you put in the "Auth. name" if you put in the correct account 
name in the field "username". In version 3.9.3 it only works if you either put 
in "username" and "Auth. name" the same correct account name or leave the 
"Auth. name" empty. It accepts the caller id as "username" in no condition, I 
have even tried to swith both entries with no success.

It seems like the PJSIP client is not correctly configured if an "Auth. name" 
is supplied.

I also tested again with Siphon 2.3rc4. There it showed "connected", but it 
crashed if I call (the known error under iOS 4.2.1). But sometimes it showed 
the status "forbidded", maybe my provider didn't liked my tests. But with the 
new version I have made many tests and it said never "Available".

The only thing that worked as I want it is calling direct SIP addresses, there 
the called persion receives the caller ID I have put in the username.

Please review your fix Samuel.

Original comment by icke2002...@gmail.com on 12 Mar 2011 at 3:07

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
Could you post here or send me, the log files fo Siphon 3.9.3 and Siphon 2.3rc4 
?

Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com on 12 Mar 2011 at 5:41

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
I released a new version 3.9.4, I hope it fixes this issue.
Could you confirm ? If not, could you send me the log files, pls?

Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com on 12 Mar 2011 at 11:41

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
No this method still does not work for me. I have attached the requested logs. 
For producing the logs I have set the maximum detail level, started the 
application and tried to make a call (with crash in 2.3rc4).

I have replaced my personal account details with the following texts:
Name: user
Username: 02012345678
Auth. name: account

I hope you can figure out the difference. At first glance I have not really 
seen the problem.

Original comment by icke2002...@gmail.com on 13 Mar 2011 at 5:21

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
I meant this version (3.9.4) does not fix my problem.

Original comment by icke2002...@gmail.com on 13 Mar 2011 at 5:22

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago

Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com on 13 Mar 2011 at 9:07

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
Could you try to clear the name field ?

Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com on 13 Mar 2011 at 9:28

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
I released a new version 3.9.5.
Now the STUN server is used.

Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com on 13 Mar 2011 at 11:13

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
I have tried clearing the name field with version 3.9.4 with the same result, 
as I saw there was a difference between the two logs. I can try it again with 
your new version. If it does not work I post another log file without setting 
the name field.

But I can say there was again a difference between 2.3rc4 and 3.9.4 without 
name,  the From/To and some of the Contact fields in the header had no 
enclosing <>.

Original comment by icke2002...@gmail.com on 14 Mar 2011 at 8:35

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
I have tested version 3.9.5 without setting the Name field, with the same 
result as before. But in the logs it looks like that there are now <> in the 
From/To/Contact fields, so I don't know whats the difference now. So I think 
you have to exactly match the logs. I hope the problem does not lay in the 
authentication itself.

Original comment by icke2002...@gmail.com on 14 Mar 2011 at 6:18

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
With Siphon 2.3, you are defined stun setting. But with Siphon 3.9.x you didn't 
define this setting. Could you try to define it ?

Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com on 14 Mar 2011 at 8:31

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
With STUN defined it still does not work, see attached log file.

Original comment by icke2002...@gmail.com on 15 Mar 2011 at 6:05

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
I created a poivy account. And the connection works fine with 
username/password/server only. If I define authentication name settings with 
username value, everything works fine too.
I think you don't need to define authentication name field.

Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com on 15 Mar 2011 at 10:49

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
Yes, thats right, but I have registered my landline number, so that it is 
displayed on the telephone of the called person. If I use only the username, no 
numer is transmitted, so I will be displayed as unknown.

It would be really nice if this works.

For testing this feature with poivy, you need the poivy software. Do the 
following steps after signing in:
- File -> Your Personal Profile
- Under Phonenumbers choose i.e. home on the left side
- enter your full international telephonenumber i.e. +492012345678
- Click "Verify now!"
- Take the call and follow the instructions
- use the local telephone numer i.e. 02012345678 as username and the account 
name as auth. name
You can test this for example with X-Lite 
(http://www.counterpath.com/x-lite.html).

If you do not have windows, I don't know if there is an other way to register 
an outgoing number.

Original comment by icke2002...@gmail.com on 19 Mar 2011 at 1:45

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
I have analyzed the digest authentication response:
- In the log of Sipon 2.3rc4 I could successfully calculate the response by 
myself
- In the log of Sipon 3.9.5 I have come to a different result than the 
application => here is the error

I have tried to calculate the same result as Sipon 3.9.5 but failed doing that. 
Also I used the username as digest-username, with a different result than Sipon 
3.9.5, so I don't know what Sipon 3.9.5 is doing wrong. It is importent to use 
the Auth. name as digest-username.

Informations that I used to calculate the digest response by hand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digest_access_authentication
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3261.txt

Original comment by icke2002...@gmail.com on 19 Mar 2011 at 5:01

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
I released a 3.9.6 version. It should fixed this issue. Could you confirm ? 

Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com on 20 Mar 2011 at 9:08

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
Now it works, thanks for your patience!

Original comment by icke2002...@gmail.com on 21 Mar 2011 at 7:06

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
you are welcome and thanks for your help.

Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com on 21 Mar 2011 at 7:24