[ATrpms-users] Asterisk rpms busted...

[Michael H. Warfield]

On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 21:40 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 01:07:53PM -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > Axel...
> > 
> > 	I figured I would ding you first before posting to any of the mailing
> > lists.

> Thanks, but there is no issue of disclosure due to security (or
> embarrassment ;), so lists are fine.

> > 	Asterisk released a security update to Asterisk and Zaptel this weekend
> > and the pieces have shown up in atrpms but there seems to be problems
> > with the Asterisk package (Zaptel seems fine).
> > 
> > 	I'm seeing this error after updating an FC5 system to 1.2.10:
> > 
> > asterisk -vvv
> > 	: - lots of verbose stuff...
> >  [app_rxfax.so]Jul 17 12:55:11 WARNING[26304]: loader.c:325 __load_resource: /usr/lib/asterisk/modules/app_rxfax.so: undefined symbol: t30_get_far_ident
> > Jul 17 12:55:11 WARNING[26304]: loader.c:554 load_modules: Loading module app_rxfax.so failed!
> > 
> > rpm -qf /usr/lib/asterisk/modules/app_rxfax.so
> > asterisk-1.2.10-26.fc5.at

> t30_get_far_ident is a symbold defined in libspandsp. Isn't spandsp
> installed on your system? What does ldd on app_rxfax.so say?

	That was it.  Spandsp has been installed all along but it didn't get
updated, for some reason.  It was linking against an old version of
libspandsp.  What's curious is that spandsp didn't get updated when I
updated asterisk.  It showed that he older version had been installed
from atrpms but it didn't update it.  I just manually updated it from
atrpms and that seems to have done the trick.

	I've added spandsp explicitly to my list of packages to be updated from
atrpms so that shouldn't be a problem again.  Thx.  Don't know how I
missed that one when I set my update package list up but, I guess, it
didn't get pulled in through dependencies.

> Anyone else using asterisk 1.2.10 with app_*fax?

> > 	Also...  In attempting to upgrade I ran into a critical dependency
> > where I couldn't update the Zaptel packages because of conflicts with
> > the zaptel-kmdl modules.  I tried installing the newer modules, but that
> > also failed.  I had to erase the older modules from the system, then
> > upgrade Asterisk and Zaptel and then install the newer zaptel-kmdl
> > packages.  Seems to be a catch-22 in the upgrade path there.

> If the upgrade succeeds manually, then it's not a dependency issue
> (otherwise you would run into it again, dependencies are static and
> stateless), but probably more an issue with your depsolver, which I
> guess is yum. Try smart or even apt and feel the difference ;)

	I've lost the error messages at this point but, basically, it would
complain that something was required by the lkm modules for the 2145
kernel and then abort.  It would do that if I tried to "update" zaptel
or simply "install" the lkm package for the 2157 kernel (which, I
believe, then required the zaptel update by dependency, thus tripping
over the conflict with the 2145 lkm package).  Manually removing the lkm
package for the 2145 kernel allowed me to update asterisk and zaptel and
then I could go back and separately install the lkm modules for that
version of zaptel.  It was basically a catch-22 as long as the lkm
modules for the 2145 kernel were installed.

> > 	One of the security issues with Asterisk is a moderately serious
> > spoofable unauthenticated resource amplification attack in IAX2 that can
> > be exploited to hijack Asterisk into DoS'ing other networks through a
> > UDP flood, so this is a moderately important update.
> 
> Thanks for the note, that's why the old packages were already removed.

	Much appreciated!

	Regards,
	Mike
-- 
Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 985-6132 |  mhw at WittsEnd.com
   /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/          | (678) 463-0932 |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
   NIC whois: MHW9          | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471        | possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-users/attachments/20060717/99550d24/attachment.bin