I apologize. The equivalent options for that on GXV324 and GXP2170 are Validate Certificate Chain and Validate Hostname in Certificate respectively.
Firmware 1.0.19.21 for UCM6202/6204/6208/6510 officially released
Dshrout
#42
21 days since this post, are you close to a firmware release? Several of my clients are eagerly awaiting this firmware update to resolve the freezing issue.
GS.Jimmy
#43
I apologize for the delay. However, some problems were discovered during Q&A for the build with the fix, and more time is needed for testing. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the ETA for it at this time.
tiennk
#44
Hi Team.
Firmware 1.0.19.21 not recording queue when making incoming callsā¦
Pls fix it.
Thanks
whizzard
#45
My issue turned out being with my switch config. I reconfigured adding an ip helper-address pointing to the DHCP (my firewall) and also used both options 66 and 43, now all seems well. Only issue was that I had to offset the time zone by 1 hour on the NTP as the time kept being an hour behind.
damiano70
#46
you could kindly let others who read the forum understand, what exactly did you do to solve?
vitaprimo
#49
Soā¦
I just finished deploying 2 additional servers to try my best to transparently integrate directory users into the system. Since Iād be dealing with 3 servers a lot of crazy-complicated routing and overkill security on the endpoints and network because thereās no authentication to speak of in order to achieve this. Itās blindly trusted peering all over.
Also, as a result I had to remap all extensions and make extensions aliases so the old numbers are reachable while they transition into the new ones that match user and number correctly in Active Directory.
I read big headlines about the new firmware supporting new, possibly-unheard-before, exotic characters so I decided to give it a go, it was that or deciphering how on earth that XML phonebook works to which there is no documentation. Same as what are the email and storage sections for in the Zero Config section, BTW, if itās for the users, it shouldnāt be batch-configured, if itās for the admin shouldnāt the system the data from the system itself?āOh well.
Anyway, so Iām configuring the LDAP phonebook and I went straight to where the problem has always been, the username. It asks for the full DN, which if filled correctly, it will include spaces, a character not accepted in the box. Iāve used the DN in other servers, and itās always accepted with spaces. Not here.
I didnāt have my hopes up so I wasnāt expecting anything, therefore no biggie. Then I remember, LDAP uses a similar address scheme to HTTP, so what if I URL-encode it? I looked it up and my the first hits I got were straight from Oracle with tons of examples. Now, I had my hopes up and:
Are you kidding me? You found the time to add another piece of bloat, some CRM thingāI read on the release notes, but not to have directory support?
Wellā¦Active Directory, my LDAP backend accepts credentials formatted in at least 5 different ways, like sAMAccountName:
NetBIOSDomainName\sAMAccountName, FQDN\sAMAccountName:
userPrincipalName and sAMAccountName@NetBIOSDomainName:
What about the mysterious new characters that are now accepted?:
The offending character is a . (period) by the way.
Lastly, I didnāt need to as the CA is already imported system-wide, but I was being thorough:
How do you expect for users to use all this? Extension numbers for everyone with yet more credentials to lose on Post-Its? And why must the certificate use a special extension? Or any extension at all. Isnāt this running Linux in the background?
Do you have some high ranking in-house executive/engineer whose job is to make everyoneās life convoluted and pointless? He/she should get a raise. Top notch. 
Are you following any set of standards, RFCs, anything? Microsoft breaks a lot of things for many nefarious reasons, sure. But when it comes to AD thereās not much else. Freshly installed RHEL/Fedora systems bind in seconds to AD, without having to add certs, Red Hat is behind FreeIPA, which is about the best Linux-equivalent for the LDAPpy AD-like thing. Why must the UCM care how credentials are sent as the supplicant? Thatās for AD, OpenLDAP or what-have-you to interpret. Plus, for over 20 years servers have been accepting requests with spaces on them, they just escape them, URL-encode them or pull some trick from somewhere. 
This isnāt even binding, just trying to get a phonebook.
āX Client CA Certā is extremely ambiguous by the way. It sounds like a subordinate CA. If itās not an authority-meant certificate, that uppercase A should be nowhere near. Asking for a key right below sort of confirm itās not a root CA but also makes room to believe maybe itās a subordinate instead.
jcnash
#50
I installed this firmware last night and now am locked out again. I do have a backup, so I can factory reset if needed, but I definitely donāt want to do that and be locked out again when it comes up with my other settings. Is there a fix for this?
royeiror
#53
Hello everyone.
I updated from 1.0.17.16 to 1.0.19.21 and lost access, I was using the default password from my UCM6202 which is printed on the back and I can no longer use it to log in.
Is there another way than factory resetting?
EDIT: Iām able to log in through SSH yet not through web
Marcin
#54
Refresh browser cache (CTRL+F5 usually do job).
You looking in OLD login which prevent you from log.
royeiror
#55
Seems like cache has nothing to do with it, I had to factory reset and start from scratch.
Marcin
#56
You skipped a lot of version (which are needed for keeping settings).
Usually FR is needed after you skip version as structure is not correctly inside UCM.
SmartVox
#57
I apologize for what I am about to write, but I just finished watching the third season of Designated Survivor, so Iām a little pumped up.
@grandstream, what is wrong with you (as a company)? You have hundreds, if not thousands of people on this forum willing and able (and proven) to be beta testers for you and your software. You roll out firmware releases with no warning, no method, no schedule, and no input from the public on what new features should be added, what features should be updated, and what features should be removed. Your āfixesā tend to be ābreaksā and you constantly change p-codes so that configuration files from firmware version X are no longer valid on firmware version Y.
Donāt get me started on the inconsistencies of p-codes in the first place. But Iāve started, so Iāll continue. Theyāre completely lacking in any real ability to provide computer-generated configuration files. Look at Cisco. Look at Polycom. These are your competitors. They use XML-based files that are not simply āp-codes in XML format.ā They are actual XML with configuration names that mean something and can survive being used on different model phones without changing anything. Itās time to get rid of p-codes.
Back to firmware.
Why does a version get released that changes basic functionality and then, when brought to your attention, gets the response, āsome problems were discovered during Q&A for the build with the fix, and more time is needed for testing.ā WHY WASNāT THE TESTING DONE BEFORE THE THING WAS RELEASED IN THE FIRST PLACE? Thatās what beta testing is for. Thatās what QA is for. Testing in production is for 1990s ādot com bubble companies.ā You should be above that. Beyond that.
Until you start wearing big-boy pants and behaving like big-boy companies, Grandstream devices will always be seen as second-rate behind Cisco, Polycom, Avaya, and even the once ālast of the packā Yealink and newcomers like Sangoma and Digium.
PLEASE get your act together and actually create a release methodology that doesnāt include doing beta testing in production with real customers. And I say this as someone who has beta tested dozens of Grandstream devices and runs a company that sells hundreds of Grandstream devices. If we donāt feel comfortable in our product selection choice, we will change to a provider we are comfortable with.
Eric Loyd
CEO, SmartVox
damiano70
#61
I had the same problem (I also reported it with a ticket), LDAP with 1.0.19.27 did not work, then I went to 1.0.18.13 and resumed to work LDAP.
At that point I put back 1.0.19.27 and it continued to work.
It seems obvious to me that 1.0.19.27 has problems with LDAP as I am not the only one who has encountered this problem.
Probably the anomaly comes out only by updating ucm to 1.0.19.27 and not by factory reset.