What is all this Zune comment spam about?

People running popular blogs are often targeted by comment spammers – this blog gets hit with at least 10,000 a year (and very useful for botnet research) – most of it is semi-literate drivel containing a link to some site being “promoted”. Idiots pay other idiots to do this because they believe it will increase their Google ranking. It doesn’t, but a fool and his money are soon parted and the comment spammers, although wasting everyone’s time, are at least receiving payment from the idiots of the second part.

But there’s a weird class of comment spam that’s been going for years which contains lucid, but repeated, “reviews” about something called a “Zune”. It turns out that this is a Microsoft MP3 player available in the USA. The spams contain a load of links, and I assume that the spammers are using proper English (well, American English) in an attempt to get around automated spam filters that can spot the broken language of the third-world spam gangs easily enough. But they do seem to concentrate on the Zune media player rather than other topics. Blocking them is easy: just block any comment with the word “Zune” in, as it doesn’t appear in normal English. Unless, of course, your blog is about media players available in the USA.

This really does beg the question: why are these spammers sicking to one subject with a readily identified filter signature? I’ve often wondered if they’re being paid by a Microsoft rival to ensure that the word “Zune” appears in every spam filter on the planet, thus ensuring that no “social media” exposure exists for the product. Or is this just a paranoid conspiracy theory?

An analysis of the sources shows that nearly all of this stuff is coming from dubious server hosting companies.  A dubious hosting company is one that doesn’t know/care what its customers are doing, as evidenced by continued abuse and lack of response to complaints. There’s one in Melbourne (Telstra!) responsible for quite a bit of it, and very many in South Korea plus a smattering in Europe, all of which are “one-time” so presumably they’re taking complains seriously even if they’re not vetting beforehand. It’s hard to be sure about the Koreans – there are a lot but there’s evidence they might be skipping from one hosting company to the other. Unusually for this kind of abuse there are very few in China and Eastern Europe, and only the odd DSL source. These people don’t seem to be making much use of botnets.

So, one wonders, what’s their game? Could it be they’re buying hosting space and appearing to behave themselves by posting reasonable-looking but irrelevant comments? Well any competent server operators could detect comment posting easily enough, but in the “cheap” end of the market they won’t have the time or even the minimal knowledge to do this.

I did wonder if they were using VPN endpoints for this, but as there’s no reverse-lookup in the vast majority of cases it’s unlikely to be any legitimate server.

Can’t get PuTTY and FreeBSD with OpenSSH to do a Certificate Login – Myths

Following yesterday’s post about issues getting “Server Refused Our Key” errors when trying to use PuTTY to log in to FreeBSD with a certificate, I thought I’d just lay to rest a few myths I’ve seen on various web sites where people have tried to explain how to do this. It’s easy to see how these myths develop – I’ve laboured for years under the misapprehension that I needed to do something or other when it was just a coincidence it had started working the first time the idea came to me. So here goes with a few of the myths. If you’re not getting this to work, it’s not for one of these reasons:

Myth: You need to specify 0600 permissions for the authorized_keys file (or the .ssh directory)

Simply not true. It may be a good idea to stop others from reading your keys, although they are “public” keys and won’t let anyone else in anyway (unless a they have a suitable cracking tool and a lot of processing power – and I mean a lot). Only your private key needs to be a secret. The only stipulation is that they must only writeable by the user – 0644 is okay, 0664 or 0666 isn’t.

But as I mentioned yesterday, you MUST ensure that your home directory is also not world-writable! You mustn’t have 0777 permissions! 0755 is okay, as is 0711. I’ve not seen this documented anyway, but it’s true for FreeBSD 7.0 to 9.0.

Myth: OpenSSH requires the authorized_keys file to be owned by the user trying to log in

Again no – it simply doesn’t. It has to be readable to that user (not just root) – this may be because it’s world readable or group readable for the user in question. It might as well be owned by root:wheel as long as it’s Other read bit is set.

Myth: If you’re using SSH2, you need a file called authorized_keys2

This might be true on some installations, but not current ones! I’ve no reason to believe that this file would even be considered, never mind required. The file used is defined in the /etc/ssh/sshd_config, and on current versions of FreeBSD (7.0-9.0) it’s definitely authorized_keys

Myth: You must generate the keys using the OpenSSH keygen utility on FreeBSD – puttygen doesn’t work

Well, there’s a bit of truth in this, but not much. Put simply, the format is different, but this only extends as far as the header and comment.

OpenSSH keys look like this:

ssh-rsa AAAAB3NzaC1y… very long line … sXi+fF noone@example.com

Please generate and paste your ad code here. If left empty, the ad location will be highlighted on your blog pages with a reminder to enter your code. Mid-Post

PuTTYGen Keys look like this:

---- BEGIN SSH2 PUBLIC KEY ----
Comment: "no one@example.com"
AAAAB3NzaC1y … long line, possibly with breaks … sXi+fF
---- END SSH2 PUBLIC KEY ----

You can convert one to the other using any text editor of your choice, as long as it handles long lines properly (like vi).

I can see there could be all sorts of fun and games if you simply cut/pasted these end ended up with extra line breaks, spaces or truncation – but the key data and its encoding is exactly the same, and that’s the bit that makes it work or not.

If you generate your key using OpenSSH tools you will need to load it into PuTTY Gen and write a Private .ppk key on your Windoze box. Or not. It’s just a text file and you could put the appropriate wrapper on it, but you might as well just use PuTTY Gen.

Myth: You need to edit /etc/ssh/sshd_conf to enable certificate login

No you don’t. The default values as shipped work just fine. Because the file consists of commented out lines of parameters with their default values, I suspect people though that some have been confused about whether the ‘#’ needed to be removed before the parameter came in to effect. They don’t – you only need to remove the comment if you want to change the default value. If you do remove the comment, but don’t edit the value, it’ll make no difference to anything.

What’s Real

In my experience, problems are almost always down to either directory permissions (see above) or errors transcribing public keys from one machine to another – and chaos and confusion caused by the abovementioned myths!

 

PuTTY, FreeBSD and SSH certificate logins

I’ve just gone crazy trying to figure out why PuTTY kept getting a “Server Refused Our Key” error when I tried to log in to a host using a certificate for the first time. Looking around the web, there are a lot of interesting theories about how to generate the certificates, and out of desperation I tried them all – nothing worked. So, for what it’s worth, here’s what does.

Generate your certificate on FreeBSD using the OpenSSH utility:

ssh-keygen -t rsa

With the default options this will create a couple of files in the .ssh directory within your home directory, and by default they’ll be called “id_rsa” and “id_rsa.pub”. In other words, if you’re user ID is fred the files will be in /usr/home/fred/.ssh/ with the above names. One’s private, the other is public.

You need to add the public key to the list of authorised keys in the .ssh directory:

cat id_rsa.pub >> ~/.ssh/authorized_keys

(The name authorized_keys with the American spelling is set in /etc/ssh/sshd_config)

Next you need to get the private key back to the machine running PuTTY. It’s just text – you can cut/paste it into a text editor and save it. For PuTTY to use it, however, it needs to be converted in to PuTTY’s own format, which you do using the PuTTY Key Generator, puttygen.exe. Run this, click on the Load button and read in your text file, then use the Save Private button to put write the .ppk file somewhere safe. You may wish to set a passphrase on it if there’s any chance someone else can get hold of it!

You may now get rid of the id_rsa.* files on the FreeBSD host, although you might want to add the public key to more than one user on more than one host – it’s a “public” key so there’s no harm in using it all over the place.

It is possible to use PuttyGen to make the keys and copy them to the FreeBSD host instead. A lot of people seem to have had trouble with this in the past (myself included), and it’s probably easier not to, especially if you’re going to use the keys in OpenSSH format for other purposes on the FreeBSD host anyway.

You’ll see a lot about setting the files in .ssh in some very restricted ways – basically all you need to do is ensure that they’re only writable by you. You can make your .ssh directory only readable by you if you wish but it won’t stop it from working. Also, the default /etc/ssh/sshd_config files is fine, and you don’t need to uncomment anything (in spite of what you might read). The default settings are all good, and all commented out, as it says on the top of the file. (Not quite true now – see 2024 update below)

Now, here’s the trick! What will cause a problem, as I eventually figured out, is if your home directory is writable by others. Don’t ask me how or why this should be true, but I tried this after I’d tried eliminating everything else on comparing working and non-working boxes. I know this for sure with FreeBSD 8.1 – ensure your home directory is drwxr-xr-x (or possibly less).

The final stage is to set up a session profile in PuTTY. This isn’t a tutorial for PuTTY, so I’ll be brief. In the options category open to Connection/Data and set the auto-login username you wish to use (if you haven’t already). Then under Connection/SSH/Auth select the private (.ppk) file you want to use. Remember, you can use this file with as many hosts and user accounts as you’ve added the public key to the .ssh/authorized_keys file. Save the session, and that’s it done. If it doesn’t do it for you, take a look in /var/log/auth.log.

Update 2024:
And finally, twelve years later, there’s a problem. newer versions of SSH will barf at RSA keys. You’ll get a “The server refused our key” message and something like this in auth.log…

 sshd[1539]: userauth_pubkey: signature algorithm ssh-rsa not in PubkeyAcceptedAlgorithms [preauth] 

Don’t worry – there’s a quick fix. In /etc/ssh/sshd_config add the following line somewhere that makes sense.

PubkeyAcceptedAlgorithms +ssh-rsa

You might want to use soemethign other than RSA keys going forward, but this is an update to a 2012 article – watch out for a new one.

Government’s red-herring email law

The government (UK) launched a red herring at the Internet today, and the news media has lapped it up. “We’re brining in a new law to allow security services to monitor email and other Internet traffic.” This is actually referring to the fact of the communication; not its content.

The TV news has subsequently been filled with earnest spokespersons from civil liberties groups decrying the worst Big Bother laws since New Labour got the boot – anything to get their silly mugs in front of a camera. Great news drama – the Conservatives moving over to the dark side.

Wake up people! What they’re proposing is just not possible. Blair already tried it in a fanfare of announcements and publicity, but anyone who knows anything about how email and the Internet function can tell you that it’s not even technically possible on so many levels.

1) Email does not necessarily use an ISP’s mail server or web mail service. Home users probably do; any company or organisation will most likely use their own. If anyone wanted to avoid snooping, they would too.

2) Users of commercial mail services are anonymous if they want to be. With a few minutes effort it’s possible to hide your IP address, or use an untraceable random one, and there’s no other trail leading back to an individual. The international criminals being targeted will know the tricks, for sure.

3) The security services already have the powers to do this, and do use them.

4) If the ISP is outside the UK, then what?

When the Blair government announced something similar I had to write to the government department concerned asking for the details. I heard about it from the general news. Apparently I, as an ISP, needed to keep records for a year – but records of what, exactly? They didn’t contact me to warn me it was happening; they can’t as there is no register of ISPs. There’s no definition of what counts as an ISP either. And needless to say, the government department concerned didn’t write back with the details.

So why is the current government making this announcement about an announcement now? Could they be wanting to change the news agenda? As usual they can rely on the media types to completely miss the fact it’s nonsense. Eventually the BBC got Andrew Mars on to comment, but I suspect his interview snippet was severely edited to suit their agenda.

Warning about “fulfilled by Amazon”

Beware – ordering something “fulfilled by Amazon” is no guarantee they’ll look after you. I ordered something with a driver CD – due to bad packaging (from Amazon) it turned up with a mangled CD, although the item was pretty robust and looks okay. Well – ordered through Amazon so they’ll sort it out…

Well no. Get this:

Me: Item arrived in poor quality packaging from Amazon (direct). Badly squashed – product box was 2″ high, Amazon outer only 1″ high. CD with driver software in same box as product visibly damaged and unreadable. Can’t tell if product itself is okay but appears unbroken.

Amazon Rep: Hello, my name is *****. I’ll be happy to help you today.

Me: Hi. I think I might have messed up with the UI. This relates to “<piece of hardware>”

Me:  Order # **************

Amazon Rep: I am sorry for the condition in which your order arrived.

Me: It’s hopeless packaging. It was squashed and the CD bent around the scanner – wrecked!

Amazon Rep: Thanks, Frank.

Amazon Rep: May I know the name of the item that arrived in a damaged condition? Me: Sure – as above. Specifically “<piece of hardware>”

Me: I ordered this direct from Amazon because I thought it might be better supported than the others available. Do you have the software available for download?

Me: There’s a bar-code on the box, but no hint of the manufacturer or a web site where I might find the software

Amazon Rep: I see that you have placed order for this scanner with the seller ‘M&S’ and it is ‘Fulfilled by Amazon’.

Me: Marks and Spencer?

Me: ’twas definitely in Amazon packaging.

Amazon Rep: Yes, the order is fulfilled by Amazon.

Me: Did the steamroller go over it before or after you posted it?

Amazon Rep: This item was labeled ‘Fulfilled by Amazon’. Items labeled ‘Fulfilled by Amazon’ are sent to you directly from an Amazon.co.uk Fulfillment Centre.

Me: Thanks – I know – that’s why I chose to get it from you as your delivery is generally hassle-free. But this doesn’t help with the mangled CD. Fortunately the scanner itself is made of ABS and designed for grease monkeys to drop it so it looks like it survived. But it’s just a brick without the CD.

Amazon Rep: Unfortunately, we are unable to create a replacement order for the items that are fulfilled by Amazon.

Amazon Rep: Could you please return the item for a full refund?

Me: No. I just want the software. If you’d like to pick it up subject to the distance selling regulations 2000 you’re welcome to do so – and I’ll tell warn everyone else about this crazy policy – but the software would be preferable for all concerned.

Amazon Rep: Could you source the software CD from your local store?

Me: Alas not, it’s not got any makers name on it, or that of the manufacturer. It’d make more sense to download it but there’s no clue as to who made it.

Amazon Rep: If you can source it from your local store, I can issue a partial refund.

Amazon Rep: If you wish to receive a full refund, you’re welcome to return it for a full refund.

Me: Distance selling regulations – you have to collect it if you want to go the refund route. Are you based in the USA? This is a European sale.

Amazon Rep: We will waive the return shipping charges, Frank.

Me: No, sorry, you won’t waive any shipping charges as you’re not allowed to make any. According to the Distance Selling Regulations you are required to send someone around to collect it at your expense. All I need to do is hand it over. But I’d much rather have the software.

Me: Please can you just tell me who produced (or sells) this thing, I’ll go to the web site and download it.

Amazon Rep: The manufacturer of this scanner is ‘SainSpeed ‘.

Me: Okay – thanks I’ll check the SainSpeed web site.

Me: they don’t have one :-(

Amazon Rep: I am sorry to hear about this, Frank.

Me: I’m flabbergasted. I thought Amazon was a safe place to buy things!

Amazon Rep: This is not a common occurrence, Frank.

Amazon Rep: We value this kind of customer feedback, as it helps us to provide the best possible service. I will forwarded your comments to the relevant department here.

Me: Okay. Is there any way you can get me a disk? if not, can you swap out the complete package?

Amazon Rep: Unfortunately, our system will not allow us to create a replacement order for the seller items, Frank.

Amazon Rep: If you prefer, you can return the item for a full refund, Frank.

Me: If you want to pass this on to the seller (if you reckon it’s not you) then please point me at them. Visa reckons it’s you (this is also governed by the Consumer Credit Act).

Amazon Rep: I understand your concern, Frank.

Amazon Rep: I am sorry for the inconvenience caused.

Amazon Rep: You have placed this order with the seller ‘M&S’ and it is ‘Fulfilled by Amazon’.

Me: So what am I supposed to do? Wait for you to collect this one and order another one?

Amazon Rep: In this case, I request you to return the item for a full refund.

Amazon Rep: Could you post it?

Me: Okay – you’ve got the address. Come and collect it. Meanwhile I’ll get Visa to recharge the value to my account. You contract was with Visa. Visa will pay you when the contract is fulfilled. I won’t pay Visa until their contract with me is fulfilled. Okay?

Me: So when do you want to pick it up?

Amazon Rep: In order to resolve this issue, we need to talk to you via phone. I will be happy to connect a call for you.

Amazon Rep: May I know your contact number?

<later>

Me: I’m on the ‘phone to one of your friends!

Me: Thanks for your help.

Amazon Rep: You’re welcome.

Amazon Rep: Thank you for chatting with Amazon.co.uk. We hope to see you again soon. Have a Great Day!

 

So, buying something from Amazon isn’t any guaranteed they’ll sort out any problems – even if their packaging is the problem. The subsequent telephone call went down the same route. I insisted on getting the software, not messing about with posting it back to them. Eventually they gave me the ‘phone number for this mysterious supplier:  0845-609-0200. I wouldn’t normally list a ‘phone number here, but a quick check revealed that it was the widely published customer service number for Marks and Spencer! I was skeptical, and queried this and asked where the number came from but they insisted that it really was the Marks and Spenser selling through Amazon. (The nature of the device – a diagnostic interface – is highly suspicious).

I’ll call Marks and Spenser tomorrow. It could be interesting. Amazon isn’t off the hook buy a long way.

The PAT man cometh

I’ve had bad experience with PAT testing companies in the past – a service of dubious merit often run on disingenuous lines because people believe something terrible will happen if they don’t have a bi-annual test (or annual if they can be persuaded there’s some law or other stating they need to). Still, if it makes the punters happy why should I deprive them of portable appliance testing companies of a living.

But, PAT testers can damage kit. They don’t do it often but once is too much, and their automated boxes and tick sheets are banned hereabouts – replaced with a proper inspection and assessment of all aspects of electrical and mechanical safety, not just earth leakage.

Unfortunately one site we look after had a visit from a PAT tester in December. Then, this month they had a power cut, and all their PCs went blank in spite of maintained UPS units, which had all been serviced in November. My heart sank when I saw the green label of a PAT tester on our UPS units – had they blown up all the inverters or what?

The batteries tested okay, both in the units and on the bench when I opened one to check. Then the penny dropped: The idiots had plugged the PCs in to any old socket on the back of the unit. Some of the sockets are surge-protected, some are maintained (battery backed). They’d just reconnected the cables by starting at the bottom and working up, so it was pure chance as to whether the PCs were on a maintained socket or not – in fact most weren’t.

Do I blame these “fully trained” PAT testing operatives? Well no – they haven’t got much concept of what they’re actually doing and the training consists of plugging something in, pressing a button, and checking to see whether the red or green light comes up. (Some may be competent electrical engineers, but its certainly not a requirement). But please keep them away from me and my equipment.

FBI VoIP system conference call intercepted by Anonymous?

Major embarrassment today as Anonymous intercepts a conference call between several European and American law enforcement agencies, according to something I’ve just seen on the BBC. It’s on YouTube right now if you want to hear it for yourself, click here.

It got my attention – someone breaking into a VoIP system would. But on further investigation it’s pretty obvious to me that it wasn’t an intercept at all. The clues are in the intercepted email  and the start of the recording – Anonymous read an email circular inviting people to the conference call, where the access number and password were given.

This makes the authorities concerned seem even more incompetent that if they’d had their VoIP service compromised.

 

Certificate “Errors” on Internet Explorer 9 – and how to stop them

Like recent versions of Internet Explorer, Version 9 has a Microsoft-style way of handling SSL certificates. It won’t let lusers access anything over a secure connection if there’s anything wrong with the certificate the remote end has presented. On the face of it, this is all very reasonable, as you don’t want the lusers being tricked by nasty criminals. But in reality it’s not as simple as that.

A bit of background, because everyone should make an informed choice about this…

SSL (or TLS) has two purposes – authentication and encryption. When you send data over SSL then two things occur. Firstly it’s only readable by the receiving computer (i.e. it’s encrypted), and secondly you know you’re talking to the right server (the link is authenticated – both computers recognise each other). The computers don’t exactly exchange passwords, but they have a way of recognising each other’s SSL certificate. Put simply, if two computers need to talk they have a copy of each other’s certificate stored on their disk  and they use to make sure they’re not talking to an impostor (gross over-simplification, but it’s a paradigm that works). Should one computer not have the certificate needed to authenticate the other end it will be supplied, and this is supplied certificate is checked to see if its “signed” by an “signing authority” using a certificate it does already have has. In other words, the unknown remote certificate arrives and the computer checks with a “signing authority” certificate to see if it’s been signed, and is therefore to be trusted. If it’s okay, it’s stored and used.

Now here’s where it breaks in Microsoft-land: For your computer’s certificate (the one it sends) to be signed by a “signing authority”, money has to change hands. Quite a lot of money, in fact. If it’s not signed, the recipient will have no way of knowing it’s really you.

In the rest of the world (where SSL came from), on receipt of an unknown certificate,  you’d see a message saying that the remote computer says it can be recognised using the supplied certificate, but I’ve never seen it before: Do we trust it? In most cases the answer would be “yes” and the two computers become known to each other on subsequent connections. It’s okay to do this – it’s normal. Something like this happens on Windows with Firefox and other browsers, but not, apparently, Internet Explorer. Not until you did a bit deeper, anyway. Actually, Internet Explorer 9 can be made to recognise unsigned security certificates, and here’s how.

First off, we really need to know what we’re about to do. What are the symptoms? The address bar goes red and you get a page saying there’s a problem with the certificate every time you visit a “site”. You can click on something to proceed anyway, but the implication is that you’re heading for your doom. The “error” message you see is normally for one of three reasons, and reading it might be enlightening. On a bad day you might get all three! But taking them in turn:

“The security certificate presented by this website was not issued by a trusted certificate authority.”

This just means that no one has paid to have this certificate signed by anyone of Microsoft’s liking. It may be a private company-wide certificate, or that belonging to a piece of network equipment such as a router. If it’s a web site belonging to your bank or an on-line shop, then you should be worried! Otherwise, if there’s a reason why someone isn’t paying to have their certificate approved (indirectly) by Microsoft, make your own decision as to whether you trust it.

So how do you get around it? Actually it’s pretty simple but Microsoft aren’t giving out any clues! The trick is to run Internet Explorer as Administrator (not just when logged in as Administrator).  In current versions of Windows you do this by right-clicking on IE in the start menu and selecting “Run as Administrator” from the pop-up menu. If you don’t, the following won’t work.

Go to the site who’s certificate you wish to import, and proceed to view the site in spite of the warnings. Then in the address bar you’ll see “Certificate error”. Click on this and you’ll see an option to “View Certificate”, and (assuming you’re in Administrator mode) there’s be a button the “General” tab to “Install Certificate”. Follow the prompts. For maximum effectiveness(!) choose the option to “Place all certificates in…” and browse to the “Trusted Root Certification Authorities”. This probably isn’t necessary in most cases, but if you do this it’ll cover you for pretty much every use. Your PC will happily accept anything from the remote machine hereafter; so make sure you’re importing the right certificate!

“The security certificate presented by this website has expired or is not yet valid.”

This means the certificate is out-of-date, or exceptionally, too new. In most cases encountering a certificate that isn’t valid suggests that your computer’s clock has reset itself to 1980. If this sounds plausible, just proceed to use the certificate anyway (there’s a clear option on the screen to do this). You’ll still get a scary red address bar, then it’s up to the server operator to fix this, but before you get on the ‘phone and give them what for, make sure you’re computer’s idea of the time and date is actually correct.

“The security certificate presented by this website was issued for a different website’s address”

This third case is a bit more tricky. Basically the name of the computer is embedded into the certificate, but you might be referring to it by another name (i.e. an alias). Or it could be using a pinched certificate. If you’re talking to a network router like a Draytek 2820 by going to its IP address and it’s giving you a built-in certificate, it would have no way of knowing what name or address the router is ultimately going end up on. The certificate is bound to be wrong in this respect. However, fishing around in the Internet Explorer options, under Advanced (and right down near the bottom) there’s a check-box – “Warn about certificate name mismatches”. Un-check it and it’ll stop squawking. Unfortunately it’s either on or off; you can’t set it to ignore a mis-match for particular names only. Because of the risk that someone might be impersonating your bank, you’d probably be best to leave this one checked and put up with the red warnings.

Final word of warning

Some people reading this will reckon this advice is reckless. Why circumvent a security feature? Simple – if the authentication part of SSL isn’t working you still want it for the encryption. In an ideal world everyone would have signed certificates so you can verify everything you talk and know it’s what it claims to be the first time you meet it. Subsequent visits will be authenticated with your newly installed certificate, so if something turns up impersonating it alter it’ll be detected. In the real world you probably want your data encrypted regardless. A signed certificate is better, but not that much better.

Hassling everyone over security certificates, as Microsoft is doing, may be justifiable on some levels, but as far as I’m concerned, anything that makes the use of encrypted data paths more difficult or expensive to use than they need be is a bad thing. They’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

Unified Communications 2012

This year’s Unified Communications show was pretty much like last year’s at least on the face of it. It’s another event defined by a buzzword; probably worth attending if you’re looking to by or sell unified communications, whatever that means. In practice you’ll find a wide choice of telephony headsets and IP VoIP endpoints (handsets) all under one roof.
Look a little closer, and this year every stand was flogging solutions involving Microsoft Lync. Microsoft what? In case you missed it, this is the new name for Microsoft Office Communicator, designed to sort out (unifiy) the bugger’s muddle they helped create with a every new IM and/or VoIP protocol released over many years. But because it’s a Microsoft product, everyone is falling over themselves to support it.
As far as I can make out, Lync is pretty much just Microsoft’s interpretation of SIP, with particular optional extension to the open standard considered by Microsoft to be mandatory. Unifying it with Skype isn’t on the cards, yet. Making some kind of sense of MSN Messenger and their various other IM protocols is; as is integration with Exchange Server for directory information.
Comapnies which once offered Asterisk in the cloud are now racing to offer Lync Servers, and as usual these are virtual products ultimately purchased from providers like SIPCOM, who actually have the hardware at the data centres and resell as a white-box product.
Another real hardware comany at the show was my old friends Snom, the German IP PABX makers. They’re offering a range of Lync compatible handsets, but with a significant twist. Microsoft recognises both “Lync Optimized”, and “Lync Qualified” handsets. Basically “Optimised” means you’re running a Microsoft Lync Client bastartised SIP stack, which won’t talk to much else. “Qualified” means you’re running standards-based SIP with the required optional extensions needed to talk to Lync Server. Snom offer both options, and have some dual-stack products that’ll register accounts with standard SIP and Lync at the same time. As handsets are a significant cost, going for the dual-stack option looks a much safer bet than throwing in with Microsoft. And here’s why…
Ask yourself the question – how long do you expect your company telephone system to last? Five years, ten years, twenty years? The longer the better. Now look again at Microsoft’s business model – they’ve got form. How long to their software products last before they’re considered to be junk, even my Microsoft? Well Windows 2000 lasted five years, Server 2003 lasted five years (Server 2000 even less), Windows NT 6 looks set to be replaced after five years too. In short, Microsoft is a software company and doesn’t see any point in supporting products longer than they have to – it’s software, after all – easy to upgrade, right? With that in mind, buying tens ot fhousands of pounds worth of Lync-only hardware might not be such a bright idea.

Another company I ran into at Integrated Comms 2012 was Draytek (UK), showing off their latest ADSL routers. I favour Draytek routers, and have done for many years. Sometimes this is hard, when new models with improvements lead to degredation and the technical documeation stops at a level just when it starts to get interesting. But put simply, they don’t have a lot of competition in the niche they operate it and their current products work really well and do a lot more than everyone elses, aspart from Cisco kit (which is expensive and needs a specialist to configure).
Their latest ADSL boxes are the 2830 and the 2850. The 2830 is an upgrade of of the 2820: new firewall and VLAN features and every port on the switch is now 1Gb. More intersting is the 2850, which has a VDSL modem built in. That’s FTTC (or BT Infinity) in case you were wondering. You can connect a 2850 to the wall, without using the BT Ethernet modem box you currently get to connect your “Home Hub”. You can also connect the BT modem to the WAN port on a 2820 or 2830 and configure PPPoE – it works just fine, and as you get one free this might seem unnecessary, but the 2850 is an all-in-one solution and when the FTTC market opens up or your BT modem breaks down.

VoIP socket pinout on newer Draytek routers (2820Vn etc)

I’ve just spent over a day trying to get this piece of information out of Draytek, so appreciate it!

On the newer Draytek routers with VoIP capabilities (Vigor 2820 and some of the later ones) you no longer connect the handset (or PABX) to a standard RJ11. Instead both analogue lines come out on a single RJ11/RJ12, and you get an adapter so you can plug two standard BT handsets in to it. I assume this only applies to UK models. Anyway, if you’re wiring to a PABX, BT jacks are a complete pain in the rear, so if you want to connect an RJ11 to a twin-pair cable and go directly to a krone block the pin-out is (officially):

  • Line 1 – pins 2 and 5 (centre two)
  • Line 2 – pins 3 and 4 (one out from centre, or outer on RJ11)

That is to say the middle two pins and the two straddling – and numbering as if it was an RJ12 with six positions, even though the contacts may be missing from an RJ11. Heck, if you don’t know how to number an RJ12 you’re probably better off with the BT jacks.

This is logical and probably most telecoms people’s first guess, but it’s nice not to have to go for trial an error or smash their adapter apart (assuming you can’t connect an AVO into a BT-style socket conveniently).

For what it’s worth, I’ve been using Draytek VoIP kit for about eight years now – some of the best going in the market it serves, and I’ve got rather a lot to compare with. It’s a pity the company is so hard to get hold of for technical support as they won’t answer a general question straddling the product range – only individual serial-numbered units. Therefore I can’t get a list of kit for which this applies – I need to ask them one at a time giving the serial number of an extant unit. I suspect they don’t want too many dumb questions swamping them, but not  so brilliant for professional users though – if it’s not in their FAQ you’re left to trial-and-error.