AnsweredAssumed Answered

Shared Endpoint Lab mechanism-too-weak Error

Question asked by van_staub on Sep 21, 2014
Latest reply on Sep 30, 2014 by npetrele

I've used a few samples with the shared endpoint lab with the same resulting error on the web console:


Exception during connection: <error><mechanism-too-weak xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl"/></error>

<error><mechanism-too-weak xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl"/></error>


My config settings are basic and follow everything I've read elsewhere in this forum and Cisco doc.

var demoConfig = {

                domain: "", //the domain specified for your CUP server

                httpBindingURL: "", //the BOSH url for your server

                //httpBindingURL: "",

                unsecureAllowed: true



The VPN is connected and my host files contains the IP ( I received in the email after reserving the lab.

I debugged the exception back to jabberwerx._handleAuthOpened(feats). From what I can tell, this may be due to the response I'm getting back from the CUP server.


<body xmlns="" xmlns:xmpp="urn:xmpp:xbosh" hold="1" ver="1.9" from="" to="" secure="true" wait="30" xmpp:version="1.0" rid="2383855057"/>


Response from CUP

<body authid='571AEE5A47' inactivity='60' polling='5' requests='2' secure='true' sid='571AEE5A47' ver='1.8' wait='30' xmlns='' xmlns:stream=''><stream:features/></body>


I believe I should be getting the XML node (or similar) as part of the response:

<stream:features xmlns='jabber:client'><mechanisms xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'><mechanism>WEBEX-TOKEN</mechanism><mechanism>PLAIN</mechanism></mechanisms></stream:features>

Since it's missing, an exception gets thrown.  So why would this occur?  During the reservation process, I did run the command to add the SDK for Web.  I should also mention that the email I received after reserving is similar in format to the one seen in this post Can't authorize using devsandbox and sampleclient.html.  The username is blank similar to the post.  The result of that post was seemingly a failed setup.  Is this issue a similar failure?