![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
techmeister: 2talk do auto provisioning now too and it works very well.
nate:techmeister: 2talk do auto provisioning now too and it works very well.
Really? Was this announced somewhere?
johny99: they also say that it is "privately address" to greatly limiting the risk of been hacked do not know what this means but do not like the sound of been hacked
ubergeeknz:johny99: they also say that it is "privately address" to greatly limiting the risk of been hacked do not know what this means but do not like the sound of been hacked
Being hacked, framed in terms of a VoIP system, generally means someone malicious connects to your PABX, authenticates as a legit station, and starts making international "0900" calls. Very expensive!
sbiddle: In this day in age if you have any SIP device explosed to the internet and port 5060 is wide open and not locked down to specific IP ranges (ie your VoIP provider) I see it as being no different to leaving your house door unlocked.
DonGould:sbiddle: In this day in age if you have any SIP device explosed to the internet and port 5060 is wide open and not locked down to specific IP ranges (ie your VoIP provider) I see it as being no different to leaving your house door unlocked.
So what you're saying is that users should block any traffic on port 5060 to any location other than their ITSP's servers even if they're just running a device behind a NAT firewall?
sbiddle: I encountered a PBX today configured by a big player in the SME PBX sector that's wide open to the world, and their technical staff lacking any knowledge of the security risks, or issue involved. I'm not going to say any more here, but safe to say significant issues are arising as a result of this.
DonGould:
This says a great deal to me about the protocol and the whole space. Technology should be easy to deploy and manage.
Hmmmm
DonGould:sbiddle: I encountered a PBX today configured by a big player in the SME PBX sector that's wide open to the world, and their technical staff lacking any knowledge of the security risks, or issue involved. I'm not going to say any more here, but safe to say significant issues are arising as a result of this.
This says a great deal to me about the protocol and the whole space. Technology should be easy to deploy and manage.
It seems to me that so far this technology is like computers where in the days of main frames and mini's. It's not mature and only really expected to work in the corporate space.
I've been thinking more about the BYOD debate we had earlier. Mobile phones are BYOD and work very well.
Computers are very much BYOD these days and have been for 3 decades. Even networked computers have been very BYOD for 2 decades since Windows for Work Groups 3.11 made peer to peer networking easy and Windows 95 made it even easier.
BYOD is important to me because it seems the only way to get the message to coms companies that they have to keep delivering more value is to leave them.
It's also really important to me to have systems that follow good robust internationally accepted standards.
Geoff Huston spoke on ABC about this a few years ago. He made two comments, one about compatibility and the other about security, and both very much apply in this space in my view.
This technology should not have to rely on uber trained experts to get it running and keep it running in my view, that's the throw back to decades old computing that the likes of Richard Stallman, Bill Gates and others fought to deliver us from.
Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies | Hatch | GoodSync | Backblaze backup
DonGould:sbiddle: I encountered a PBX today configured by a big player in the SME PBX sector that's wide open to the world, and their technical staff lacking any knowledge of the security risks, or issue involved. I'm not going to say any more here, but safe to say significant issues are arising as a result of this.
This says a great deal to me about the protocol and the whole space. Technology should be easy to deploy and manage.
It seems to me that so far this technology is like computers where in the days of main frames and mini's. It's not mature and only really expected to work in the corporate space.
I've been thinking more about the BYOD debate we had earlier. Mobile phones are BYOD and work very well.
Computers are very much BYOD these days and have been for 3 decades. Even networked computers have been very BYOD for 2 decades since Windows for Work Groups 3.11 made peer to peer networking easy and Windows 95 made it even easier.
BYOD is important to me because it seems the only way to get the message to coms companies that they have to keep delivering more value is to leave them.
As for PC's being a BYOD device I couldn't disagree more. No IT manager in their world who has a brain and wants a secure corporate or business IT network would let anybody bring their own PC to work unless that device belongs to the domanin and appropiate security policies are in place. The risks of letting users stroll up with their home laptop infested with spyware and viruses are simply far too great.
________
Antoniosk
freitasm: If you think that simply bringing your own device and plugging to the network is all it takes, you are wrong.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |