I am new to Freeswitch. Is it possible that a specific user calls on a number, which results to a conference call. And system adds multiple people to this conference call automatically. e.g.
User "A" calls at 5656. And whenever user A calls at this no, then the dial plan will begin a conference. And User B,C and D will automatically added to this conference. How will the dial plan look like.
Is it possible to mute all except the caller automatically. Can somebody share Dial plan for both of these things?
Thanks
Check mod_conference conference_set_auto_outcall
http://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/Conference_set_auto_outcall
The conference is anyway started by an extension, if you use dial plans. When conference_set_auto_outcall can call some predefined numbers.
you need to issue an originate command after your conference is established. Then it will make outgoing calls and join them into the bridge. See mod_conference documentation on FreeSWITCH wiki.
I think the easiest way to do so is to write a Lua script and execute it from your dialplan.
As far as I know, there's no ready-made piece of configuration, you either need to learn it yourself or pay someone to implement it.
Related
I am testing .NET version of ZeroMQ to understand how to handle network failures. I put the server (pub socket) to one external machine and debugging the client (sub socket). If I stop my local Wi-Fi connection for seconds, then ZeroMQ automatically recovers and I even get remaining values. However, if I disable Wi-Fi for longer time like a minute, then it just gets stuck on a frame waiting. How can I configure this period when ZeroMQ is still able to recover? And how can I reconnect manually after, say, several minutes? How can I understand that the socket is locked and I need to kill/open again?
Q :" How can I configure this ... ?"
A :Use the .NET versions of zmq_setsockopt() detailed parameter settings - family of link-management parameters alike ZMQ_RECONNECT_IVL, ZMQ_RCVTIMEO and the likes.
All other questions depend on your code.
If using blocking-forms of the .recv()-methods, you can easily throw yourself into unsalvageable deadlocks, best never block your own code ( why one would ever deliberately lose one's own code domain-of-control ).
If in a need to indeed understand low-level internal link-management details, do not hesitate to use zmq_socket_monitor() instrumentation ( if not available in .NET binding, still may use another language to see details the monitor-instance reports about link-state and related events ).
I was able to find an answer on their GitHub https://github.com/zeromq/netmq/issues/845. Seems that the behavior is by design as I got the same with native zmq lib via .NET binding.
(Let's ignore the fact that NSConnection is now deprecated.)
I have a tool that accepts connections to NSConnection over a service port. I have an application that launches the tool and then connects to it. That part works.
Now, I like to make sure that only my particular app can talk to the tool and that the tool rejects connections from any other tool/app.
How do I best accomplish this?
One idea I had:
Since the app starts the tool, it could pass a "secret" to the tool as an argument, and then I pass the same secret to the tool whenever I invoke one of its functions as an NSDistributedObject. However, that would mean I have to pass that extra argument to every call I make, and I think that's unnecessary overhead.
I would think that I could accept or reject the connection right when the app opens the connection to the tool, i.e. only once. There is the NSConnectionDelegate, and I suspect that I'd have to implement the authentication check in its authenticateComponents:withData: handler, but I cannot find any examples that would explain how to do that. I mean, is there any data in that connection attempt that would identify the app that's requesting the connection, such as its PID, for instance?
Do you establish a connection for every call? I wouldn't think so but, if not, why do you think you'd have to pass the secret for every call? It's pretty common for the server to have a check-in method that clients have to call. You could validate the secret in that check-in method.
A malicious client might try to just skip the check-in method. You can use the -connection:handleRequest: method of NSConnectionDelegate to force them to call the check-in method. Keep a flag for every connection indicating if you've seen the check-in method. If you have, that method can just return NO. If you haven't, then examine the NSDistantObjectRequest's invocation's selector. If it's the check-in method, set your flag and return NO. If it's not, then terminate the connection.
I know the underlying ports (Mach or socket) have mechanisms for authenticating peers, but I don't see a way to get at that with the abstractions of NSConnection laid over them.
Finally, you are apparently wedded to NSConnection but this is exactly the sort of thing that the NSXPCConnection API is for. Among other things, it will ensure that the service is only visible to the parent app.
Is there any way by which i can receive the information about which agent received the call in queue and what is the duration of call and other information.
I read about the variables that hold this information like cc_agent, cc_queue_answered_epoch etc but how can i access them through freeswitch API in Lua OR it must be evaluated from dialplan only by setting action application to "luarun" with required data.! I am simply forwarding the call to queue
Session:execute("callcenter","Sales")
Basically what i am trying to do is recording all this information in a database after agent hangup the call. Any clue or a direction will be very helpful
Depending on how you have your callcenter app setup, you could parse the CDR data for the following:
cc_agent
That value should be something like:
agent007#pbx.widgetets.local
Given this, you can you simple use regex in your scripting language and you'll be able to quickly see the agent that answered the calls.
I'm planing to start some sms based application and currently in feasibility study part. In my application client have to sms their problem to the server and we have to analyse the problem and take reasonable action. Also We have to find the tentative location through which tower they have been connected. I have seen about silent sms feature but not understand. Is any body have experience on how to detect location of sms creator (not in android or iphone). Please help me on determining whether it is possible or not to find the location. If possible then how?
In short this is not possible.
an SMS message weather in PDU mode or text mode does not carry the information to match the source location to the message in any way shape or form.
With reference to the article you linked to in your opening post, I'm sorry to say that there's so much B$$l S$$t in that post that I can smell it from here.
In all the years Iv'e worked with GSM systems, both as a network maintenance engineer and later as a developer writing software to use these systems, not once have I heard of anything such as an 'LMU' or an 'E-OTD' in fact the only acronym that article really got correct was 'BTS' oh and the bit on passing the data over the signalling channel.
As for the silent SMS, well that part actually is true. The special type of SMS they refer to is actually called a Ping-SMS and it exists for exactly the same reason that a regular PING on a TCP/IP network exists, and that's to see if the remote system is alive and responding.
What it's NOT used for is the purpose outlined in the article, and that's for criminal gangs to send it to your phone and find out where you are.
For one, the ONLY people that can correctly send these messages are the telephone operator themselves. That's not to say that it's impossible to send one from a consumer device by directly programming a PDU if you have the necessary equipment and know how. You could for instance pull this stunt off using a normal GSM modem, a batch of AT commands and some serious bit twiddling.
However, since this message would by it's very nature have to go through your operators SMSC and most operators filter out anything from a subscriber connection that's not deemed regular consumer traffic, then there's a high chance this would fail.
You could if you had an account, also send this message using a web sms provider that allowed you to directly construct binary messages, but again they are likely to filter out anything not deemed consumer grade messages.
Finally, if you where to manage to send an SMS to a target device, the target device would not reply with anything anywhere near a chunk of location based info, cell tower, GPS or otherwise. The reason the SMS operators (and ultimately the law enforcement agencies know this info) is because EVERY handset that's attached to the GSM network MUST register itself in the operators MSC (Mobile switching centre), this registration (Known as ratching up) is required by the network so it can track what channels are in use by which device on which towers so that it knows where to send paging and signalling info.
Because of the way the PING SMS works it causes the destination device to re-register itself, usually forcing the MSC to do a location update on the handset which causes a re-registration.
Even then, all you get in the MSC is an identifier of the cell site the device is attached too, so unless you have a database in the organisation of all cell sites along with their exact lat/long co-ordinates, it's really not going to help you all that much.
As for the triangulation aspect, well for that to work you'd need to know at least 2 other transmitters that the device in question can see, and what's more you'd need that device to report that info back to someone inside the network.
Since typically it's only the Ril (Radio interface layer) on the device that actually keeps track of which transmitters it can see, and since the AT commands for many consumer grade GSM modems have the ability to query this information disabled, then it's often not easy to get that info without actually hacking the firmware in the device in question.
How does Google do it? well quite easy, they actually have commercial agreements with network providers that pass the details of registered towers to their back-end infrastructure, in the apps themselves, they have ways of getting the 'BSS List' and sending that list back to Google HQ, where it's cross referenced with the data from the network operator, and the info they have in their own very large transmitter database and finally all this is mashed together with some insane maths to get an approximate location.
Some GSM Modems and some Mobile phone handsets do have the required AT commands enabled to allow you to get this information easy, and if you can then match that information to your own database you can locate the handset your running from, but being able to send a special SMS to another device and get location info back is just a pipe dream nothing more, something like this is only going to work if your target device is already running some custom software that you can control, and if your device is running software that someone else is controlling, then you have bigger problems to worry about.
If,for example,The socket in my compiled application is designed to connect to 123.456.789.0.
How do I check if its connected to 123.456.789.0? Is there a way to do this?
The idea is this:I want to prevent other people editing my program and changing the address to,for example, 127.0.0.1 and make it connect through a proxy.
Is there any function/way/trick to check the address after the socket is connected?
Use the getpeername function to retrieve the address of the remote host.
If someone edits your program like you mention, they'll probably alter such a check as well though.
nos's comment about the insecurity of this approach is correct, but incomplete. You wouldn't even need to change the program's code to circumvent your proposed mechanism.
The easiest way around it would be to add an IP alias to one of the machine's network interfaces. Then a program can bind to that interface on the port your program connects to, and the OS's network stack will happily send connections to the attacker's local program, not your remote one.
So, now you say you want to know how to list the computer's interfaces so you can detect this sort of subversion. Your opponent counterattacks, launching your program as a sub-process of theirs after installing a Winsock hook that routes Winsock calls back through the parent process.
We then expect to find you asking how to read the executable code section of a particular DLL loaded into your process space, so you can check that the code is what you expect. Now your opponent drops the Winsock shim, switching to an NDIS layer filter, rewriting packets from your program right before they hit the NIC.
Next we find you looking for someone to tell how to list the drivers installed on a Windows system, so you can check that one of these filters isn't present. Your opponent thinks for about 6 seconds and decides to start screwing with packet routing, selecting one of at least three different attacks I can think of off the top of my head. (No, wait, four.)
I'm not a security expert. Yet, I've spent five minutes on this and already have your security beat seven different ways.
Are you doomed? Maybe, maybe not.
Instead of you coming up with fixes to the risks you can see, better to post a new question saying what it is you're trying to protect, and have the experts comment on risks and possible fixes. (Don't add it here. Your question is already answered, correctly, by nos. This is a different question.)
Security is hard. Expertise counts for far more in that discipline than in most other areas of computer science.