python-ws-discovery
python-ws-discovery copied to clipboard
andreikop
<SOAP-ENV:Fault> with a chinese camera (TP-LINK)
First of all, thanks for this awesome python library and the great work.
Now my question.
Don't we all just love cheap chinese camera brands?
Mine is a brand new tp-link IP cam. It is not discovered with python-ws-discovery, but digging a bit deeper, I can see that it's response is None'd in message.py around line 35:
if dom.getElementsByTagNameNS(NS_SOAPENV, "Fault"):
return None
The essence of the SOAP message the camera returns is this:
<SOAP-ENV:Header><wsa:MessageID>urn:uuid:8837bd04-b6df-4e95-971e-1edc3062fc0a</wsa:MessageID>
<wsa:To SOAP-ENV:mustUnderstand="true">urn:schemas-xmlsoap-org:ws:2005:04:discovery</wsa:To>
<wsa:Action SOAP-ENV:mustUnderstand="true">http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/04/discovery/Probe</wsa:Action>
</SOAP-ENV:Header><SOAP-ENV:Body><SOAP-ENV:Fault><SOAP-ENV:Code><SOAP-ENV:Value>SOAP-ENV:Sender
</SOAP-ENV:Value><SOAP-ENV:Subcode><SOAP-ENV:Value>ter:InvalidArgVal</SOAP-ENV:Value></SOAP-ENV:Subcode>
</SOAP-ENV:Code><SOAP-ENV:Reason><SOAP-ENV:Text xml:lang="en">error</SOAP-ENV:Text></SOAP-ENV:Reason>
</SOAP-ENV:Fault></SOAP-ENV:Body></SOAP-ENV:Envelope>
So there is not much information why this camera dislikes python-ws-discovery, or maybe that ter:InvalidArgVal is providing a clue?
Does anyone have any experience / clue of why this would happen or how I could "massage" the message sent to the camera in such a way that it starts not to diss python-ws-discovery? I am happy to do the debugging, if you just give me a clue how to proceed. :)
TP-Link might be cheap but it is also very popular in the neck of the woods I live in. Maybe this helps?
https://www.reddit.com/r/ispyconnect/comments/uxdphn/tplink_onvif/
I pimped up the -c (capture) option in wsdiscover to pretty-print the xml messages & add some more info & tried TP-LINK agains UNV.
Here are my findings.
First, wsdiscover sends the PROBE msg correctly:
1 SEND 239.255.255.250:3702 iface=10.0.0.1 TS=0.1118924617767334
<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<s:Envelope
xmlns:a="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/08/addressing"
xmlns:d="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/04/discovery"
xmlns:s="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
<s:Header>
<a:Action>http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/04/discovery/Probe</a:Action>
<a:MessageID>urn:uuid:d5328158-9034-4872-99c5-621464e5c68f</a:MessageID>
<a:To>urn:schemas-xmlsoap-org:ws:2005:04:discovery</a:To>
</s:Header>
<s:Body>
<d:Probe/>
</s:Body>
</s:Envelope>
A legit answer from an UNV camera (yet another chinabrand) looks like this:
10 RECV 10.0.0.3:59513 TS=0.2311234474182129
<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<SOAP-ENV:Envelope xmlns:SOAP-ENV="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"
xmlns:SOAP-ENC="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-encoding"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:xop="http://www.w3.org/2004/08/xop/include"
xmlns:wsa="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/08/addressing"
xmlns:tns="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/04/discovery"
xmlns:dn="http://www.onvif.org/ver10/network/wsdl"
xmlns:wsa5="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">
<SOAP-ENV:Header>
<tns:AppSequence MessageNumber="10109" InstanceId="1"/>
<wsa:MessageID>urn:uuid:00010010-0001-1020-8000-48ea63363282</wsa:MessageID>
<wsa:RelatesTo>urn:uuid:d5328158-9034-4872-99c5-621464e5c68f</wsa:RelatesTo>
<wsa:To SOAP-ENV:mustUnderstand="true">urn:schemas-xmlsoap-org:ws:2005:04:discovery</wsa:To>
<wsa:Action SOAP-ENV:mustUnderstand="true">http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/04/discovery/ProbeMatches</wsa:Action>
</SOAP-ENV:Header>
<SOAP-ENV:Body>
<tns:ProbeMatches>
<tns:ProbeMatch>
<wsa:EndpointReference>
<wsa:Address>urn:uuid:00010010-0001-1020-8000-48ea63363282</wsa:Address>
</wsa:EndpointReference>
<tns:Types>dn:NetworkVideoTransmitter</tns:Types>
<tns:Scopes>onvif://www.onvif.org/Profile/G onvif://www.onvif.org/Profile/Streaming onvif://www.onvif.org/type/video_encoder onvif://www.onvif.org/type/ptz onvif://www.onvif.org/type/audio_encoder onvif://www.onvif.org/location/ onvif://www.onvif.org/register_status/offline onvif://www.onvif.org/register_server/0.0.0.0:5060 onvif://www.onvif.org/regist_id/36-32-82 onvif://www.onvif.org/type/IPC onvif://www.onvif.org/name/IPC3232ER3-DVZ28 onvif://www.onvif.org/manufacturer/UNV onvif://www.onvif.org/VideoSourceNumber/1 onvif://www.onvif.org/version/IPC_Q1201-B5017P11D1607 onvif://www.onvif.org/serial/210235C20HA16A000026 onvif://www.onvif.org/macaddr/48ea63363282 onvif://www.onvif.org/hardware/IPC3232ER3-DVZ28 </tns:Scopes>
<tns:XAddrs>http://10.0.0.3:80/onvif/device_service</tns:XAddrs>
<tns:MetadataVersion>1</tns:MetadataVersion>
</tns:ProbeMatch>
</tns:ProbeMatches>
</SOAP-ENV:Body>
</SOAP-ENV:Envelope>
But TP-LINK says this:
9 WARNING: BAD RECV 10.0.0.7:3702 TS=0.12566018104553223
<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<SOAP-ENV:Envelope xmlns:SOAP-ENV="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"
xmlns:SOAP-ENC="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-encoding"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:wsa="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/08/addressing"
xmlns:wsdd="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/04/discovery"
xmlns:chan="http://schemas.microsoft.com/ws/2005/02/duplex"
xmlns:wsse="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-secext-1.0.xsd"
xmlns:wsu="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-utility-1.0.xsd"
xmlns:wsa5="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing" xmlns:xmime="http://tempuri.org/xmime.xsd"
xmlns:xop="http://www.w3.org/2004/08/xop/include" xmlns:wsrfbf="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrf/bf-2"
xmlns:wstop="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsn/t-1" xmlns:wsrfr="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrf/r-2"
xmlns:wsnt="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsn/b-2" xmlns:tt="http://www.onvif.org/ver10/schema"
xmlns:ter="http://www.onvif.org/ver10/error" xmlns:tns1="http://www.onvif.org/ver10/topics"
xmlns:tds="http://www.onvif.org/ver10/device/wsdl" xmlns:tmd="http://www.onvif.org/ver10/deviceIO/wsdl"
xmlns:trt="http://www.onvif.org/ver10/media/wsdl" xmlns:tev="http://www.onvif.org/ver10/events/wsdl"
xmlns:tdn="http://www.onvif.org/ver10/network/wsdl" xmlns:timg="http://www.onvif.org/ver20/imaging/wsdl"
xmlns:trp="http://www.onvif.org/ver10/replay/wsdl" xmlns:tan="http://www.onvif.org/ver20/analytics/wsdl"
xmlns:tr2="http://www.onvif.org/ver20/media/wsdl">
<SOAP-ENV:Header>
<wsa:MessageID>urn:uuid:d5328158-9034-4872-99c5-621464e5c68f</wsa:MessageID>
<wsa:To SOAP-ENV:mustUnderstand="true">urn:schemas-xmlsoap-org:ws:2005:04:discovery</wsa:To>
<wsa:Action SOAP-ENV:mustUnderstand="true">http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/04/discovery/Probe</wsa:Action>
</SOAP-ENV:Header>
<SOAP-ENV:Body>
<SOAP-ENV:Fault>
<SOAP-ENV:Code>
<SOAP-ENV:Value>SOAP-ENV:Sender</SOAP-ENV:Value>
<SOAP-ENV:Subcode>
<SOAP-ENV:Value>ter:InvalidArgVal</SOAP-ENV:Value>
</SOAP-ENV:Subcode>
</SOAP-ENV:Code>
<SOAP-ENV:Reason>
<SOAP-ENV:Text xml:lang="en">error</SOAP-ENV:Text>
</SOAP-ENV:Reason>
</SOAP-ENV:Fault>
</SOAP-ENV:Body>
</SOAP-ENV:Envelope>
Does the SOAP ping-pong:ing fail maybe because the TP-LINK camera wants more xlmns ? That "ter" might refer to that line xmlns:ter="http://www.onvif.org/ver10/error" .. that is not found in wsdiscover's original PROBE message..?
Taking a look in onvif core specs, there is this (in section 5.8.2.2):
ter:InvalidArgs --> Invalid Args --> An error due to any of the following:
missing argument, too many arguments, arguments are of the wrong data type.
Not sure why the camera would reply like this, since the PROBE message seems completely legit - or wait, if I look at the up-to-date WSDiscovery specs in here, it says:
<s:Envelope ... >
<s:Header ... >
<a:Action ... >
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-dd/ns/discovery/2009/01/Probe
</a:Action>
<a:MessageID ... >xs:anyURI</a:MessageID>
[<a:ReplyTo ... >endpoint-reference</a:ReplyTo>]?
<a:To ... >xs:anyURI</a:To>
...
</s:Header>
<s:Body ... >
<d:Probe ... >
[<d:Types>list of xs:QName</d:Types>]?
[<d:Scopes [MatchBy="xs:anyURI"]? ... >
list of xs:anyURI
</d:Scopes>]?
...
</d:Probe>
</s:Body>
</s:Envelope>
So in the <a:Action> section there should be
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-dd/ns/discovery/2009/01/Probe
instead of the oldie..?
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/04/discovery/Probe
Do these things need to be up-to-date?
EDIT: know I noticed that in the message sent by TP-LINK camera it also refers to the 2005 specs, so it should be OK
The <a:MessageID> seems different as well: it should be
<a:MessageID ... >xs:anyURI, but python-ws-discovery uses
<a:MessageID>urn:uuid.
I'd imagine that cams should look at the <a:Action> section, read the specs version from there and then expect one format or another, according to the version, right? But, as they are chinese cameras .. and the specs used by python-ws-discovery are from 2005 (!) so I guess anything can happen.
Wikipedia has nice links to the two different spec version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WS-Discovery
But as I mentioned in the previous comment, both python-ws-discovery and the TP-LINK camera seem to be using the 2005 specs.
So I think the conclusions is that TP-LINK cameras send shit by default?
For the sake of completeness, here is the PROBE as of 2005 specs:
<s:Envelope
xmlns:a="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/08/addressing"
xmlns:d="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/04/discovery"
xmlns:i="http://printer.example.org/2003/imaging"
xmlns:s="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope" >
<s:Header>
<a:Action>
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/04/discovery/Probe
</a:Action>
<a:MessageID>
uuid:0a6dc791-2be6-4991-9af1-454778a1917a
</a:MessageID>
<a:To>urn:schemas-xmlsoap-org:ws:2005:04:discovery</a:To>
</s:Header>
<s:Body>
<d:Probe>
<d:Types>i:PrintBasic</d:Types>
<d:Scopes
MatchBy="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/04/discovery/ldap" >
ldap:///ou=engineering,o=examplecom,c=us
</d:Scopes>
</d:Probe>
</s:Body>
</s:Envelope>