Closed sv5d closed 3 years ago
Thank you so much for spotting this! It passed undetected in many tests I did and other people did. Just for the sake of curiosity, did the bug cause any trouble with other SLE implementations?
Hi, no this one didn't cause trouble in our case, I've found it while investigating on the authentication random number issue and comparing the bind packets with thoses generated by an implementation based on the ESA API. According to the spec (911.2-B-3, §3.2.2.6, notes 3 and 4), it may be used by gateways but can also be ignored, what apparently is our case.
Hi, I think the ESA SLE API ignores it in fact, the matching is done only via the SIID as far as I remember. Thank you again for spotting this one. Should you have any additional issue or feature request, let me know and I will be happy to help.
In the bind request, the responder port identifier was set to the responder identifier instead of the responder port identifier.