Advanced notice to the community regarding Clearly IP modules


(Brian Ladd) #41

Well it goes back to my original question-- how can 2 different competing parties guarantee the integrity of the signing/key process if they aren’t collaborating and communicating on what modules they are signing?


#42

Well said @cyberchaplain. Some rationale and perspective is required quickly on this very public forum.


(Tom Ray) #43

Did they though? The new requirements say YOUR PBX must do these things on its own out of the box. Not install a third party module, not have a specific SIP Trunk provider that is providing you these services.

So unless this module can work with ANY TECH, PRI, T1, SIP, etc. and can allow you to use ANY provider be it a SIP based or traditional telecom then no it is not address the E911 concerns of the new laws.

Right now Clearly IP is not a MLTS vendor so if you were to order their appliance and ask to have FreePBX installed on it, then FreePBX must have this already baked in. You must be able to comply to the laws and configure the PBX accordingly without any additional modules being installed to make it happen.

This isn’t about being first to market with a new solution. That only applies to their SIP Trunking side. Sangoma is a MLTS vendor, at this time Clearly IP is not. Sangoma must comply or they cannot be allowed to have their PBX installed after Feb 16th. That means things like PBXact can’t be sold.

Again the only “first to market” aspect here is on the SIP Trunking side as YOU the user will need to either have a DID+Location per phone or have a provider that supports Dynamic addresses so you don’t need a DID per phone.

Every PBX/MLTS vendor has to do this.


#44

You have no idea what you are talking about. Thanks for previously using FreePBX.


(Molly Mae) #45

Thanks for the clarification and setting me straight!


(Scott Griepentrog) #46

This is a very good point. Since the module signing system is supposed to be about preventing an outage or loss (due to hackers corrupting a module trying to make free calls through your box) and not about preventing competition – possibly a separate third party should be administering the module signing system so that FreePBX developers from multiple companies can innovate at will?


(Avayax) #47

I just installed the latest Incredible PBX package to take a look at the non Sangoma modules.
Those from Clearly IP are one for their SIP trunks, one to manage SMS and one EPM like module to manage their phones.
Then two 3rd party modules from Ward Mundy himself called AsteriDex and Reminder and then Asternic CDR reports, which has been around for a while.

That’s it.


(Brian Ladd) #48

That sounds nice, but I don’t see either party wanting to give up their “ownership” of the signing.


#49

So, if one were to disable signature checking yet have something like rootkithunter watch for changes in /var/www/html/admin/* , could we all get along again?

(its been working for me for 10 years or more (way before signature checking was a “thing”) )


#50

Did you see the news about Tesla pulling Autopilot from used vehicles? Legal.

And that is the reason I will never buy a Tesla, even though I would love to own one. It’s been corrupted by corporations. This has nothing to do with “autopilot”. It’s about corporate lawyers controlling YOUR private property that YOU paid for. Nope. Not even once. I will ride a horse to work before I do that.

(this is not off topic, it is directly relevant to this fiasco)


(Preston Toborg) #51

This doesnt surprise me what so ever I already had my doubts when ClearlyIP was started. Good for Sangoma not taking shit against their stuff!


(Aaron) #52

Lol. Where does it say it must do it out of the box? Im pretty sure they only care if you just do it. Not how you do it. As long as its done.

Better tell AT&T and Frontier they dont need to register your 911 locations anymore since it should be done from the box out of the box.

Better tell Sangoma Owned VoipInnovations to kill their 911 notification product. Lol you’ve went off the rails.


(Tom Ray) #53

Have you bothered to even read Kari’s Law OR Section 506 of Ray Baum’s Act?

(1) Kari’s Law applies to multi-line telephone systems (MLTS), which are telephone systems often used by office buildings, campuses, and hotels. Kari’s Law requires MLTS that are manufactured, imported, offered for first sale or lease, first sold or leased, or installed after February 16, 2020 to enable users to dial 911 directly, without having to dial a prefix to reach an outside line, and to provide for notification (e.g., to a front desk or security office) when a 911 call is made.

(2) RAY BAUM’S Act requires the Commission to consider adopting rules to ensure that a “dispatchable location” is conveyed with 911 calls, regardless of the technological platform used, so that 911 call centers will receive the caller’s location automatically and can dispatch responders more quickly. “Dispatchable location” is “the street address of the calling party, and additional information such as room number, floor number, or similar information necessary to adequately identify the location of the calling party.”

No, the national database is still being used. In fact, you will need to ADD addresses for this. Again, go read the laws.

Sigh, again go read the laws.

And you’ve sounded like you’re making uninformed comments. So I’ll say it again, you need to read the laws because it applies to installers and admins of the system as much as it applies to the makers and providers.


#54

This appears to be the approach that both the new Sangoma 911 and Clearly IP 911 solutions to RAY BAUM ACT challenges offer at this time.

But there are other ways discussed in other threads to get this information relayed dynamically only when needed that can help avoid the privacy issues associated with the traditional Registered Location method. I also offer up some answers to the Frequently Asked Question about Dispatchable Location separately from this forum - just as long as we are diverting from the OP I thought I’d make mention of it :slight_smile:


#55

No, please stop spamming your product everywhere.


#56

Thank you for contributing to so many great threads on this forum! But I think for some people reading this thread, it was maybe their first time being exposed to the information about very recent changes in critical emergency services affecting every PBX/MLTS… anyhow back to the OP!

Please update when the revocation definitively occurs. Also Monday is a holiday for most in the US.


(Nenad Corbic) #57

Sangoma will NOT revoke signature on ClearlyIP Key

Subsequent to our post on Friday, February 9, 2020, ClearlyIP has agreed not to use the FreePBX Master key and has generated a new ClearlyIP Master key that does not make use of the FreePBX Master Key. Further, ClearlyIP has committed to no longer use their former key, and will only use their new key to sign their modules going forward.

As a result, Sangoma has taken a decision NOT to revoke our signature from the ClearlyIP Master key on Monday February 17.

To reiterate, Sangoma never planned, nor is currently planning, to deprecate the FreePBX Master Key, no matter what some other third parties in the community insinuated. As good stewards of the FreePBX project, Sangoma remains fully committed to the FreePBX community, open source, and the FreePBX project.


#58

Well thank goodness for THAT.