wrong uin/password combination

[stephan.augustin@…]

when i add my icq-number in licq, i get an wrong uin/passwort error. ( on suse 10.1, completely fresh installed) when i use a licq-directory created by licq 1.3.0 with suse 10.0 ( there it works fine) I can use my account, i can login, but i get only a few contacts of my contact list shown. the others are not to find.

Here the debug-output:

stephan@stephan:~> licq -d16
14:08:22: [PKT] Packet (SRVv0, 97 bytes) sent:
                (192.168.0.23:40747 -> 64.12.161.153:5190)
     0000: 2A 01 20 C6 00 5B 00 00  00 01 00 01 00 09 31 36   *. ..[........16
     0010: 34 33 38 33 39 35 39 00  02 00 08 80 52 E4 B4 51   4383959.....R..Q
     0020: E7 B5 A0 00 03 00 08 49  43 51 42 61 73 69 63 00   .......ICQBasic.
     0030: 16 00 02 01 0A 00 17 00  02 00 14 00 18 00 02 00   ................
     0040: 22 00 19 00 02 00 00 00  1A 00 02 0B B8 00 14 00   "...............
     0050: 04 00 00 04 3D 00 0F 00  02 65 6E 00 0E 00 02 75   ....=....en....u
     0060: 73                                                 s
14:08:22: [PKT] Packet (SRVv0, 10 bytes) received:
                (192.168.0.23:40747 <- 64.12.161.153:5190)
     0000: 2A 01 64 5F 00 04 00 00  00 01                     *.d_......
14:08:22: [PKT] Packet (SRVv0, 92 bytes) received:
                (192.168.0.23:40747 <- 64.12.161.153:5190)
     0000: 2A 04 64 60 00 56 00 01  00 09 31 36 34 33 38 33   *.d`.V....164383
     0010: 39 35 39 00 04 00 3F 68  74 74 70 3A 2F 2F 77 77   959...?http://ww
     0020: 77 2E 61 69 6D 2E 63 6F  6D 2F 65 72 72 6F 72 73   w.aim.com/errors
     0030: 2F 4D 49 53 4D 41 54 43  48 5F 50 41 53 53 57 44   /MISMATCH_PASSWD
     0040: 2E 68 74 6D 6C 3F 63 63  6F 64 65 3D 75 73 26 6C   .html?ccode=us&l
     0050: 61 6E 67 3D 65 6E 00 08  00 02 00 05               ang=en......
stephan@stephan:~>  

[root_42]

Please check the owner.Licq file generated by licq on 10.1 and the one on 10.0. Can you compare the two password fields? Are they different? Maybe some special character that gets garbled?

[stephan.augustin@…]

the passwords ( clear-text ?!? ) are the same. nowhere in the file are incompatible characters ore something else found that was incorrect.

i forgot :

after creating an new account with licq ( it works fine ) i can login and use it as well. the only thing i can't try with it is the import of the contact list

stephan

[stephan.augustin@…]

i tried again with the new registered number i cant login anymore. it seems to work only until the accountnumber is changed the first time

stephan

[root_42]

Yes, the passwords are cleartext. BTW icq sends them in almost cleartext over the network, it is just a very simple encryption. So what does a "diff owner.Licq owner.Licq.10.0" yield, where you compare both files? You can xxxx out the passwords... :)

[anonymous]

Pfff... I can only guess here. Have you tried using the SVN version? Which version comes with SuSE 10.1?

[anonymous]

suse 10.1 doesn't ship any version of licq .. 10.0 too. remember it was 1.3.0 on my suse 10.0...

after some work i could locat the error a bit better :

removing the licq-directory and adding the number again made it working - half ...

i was able to log on, my contact list wasn't loaded and i saw no contacts.

using the icq-number with an ordinary windows-client ( icq 5.1) i saw only one contact online at my list, one contact offline and 5 contacts waiting for authorisation, which i've surely authorised before.

now i Can't logon because of an error ( sorry, in german, because i don't know the exactly english one : ) Senderate-Limit überschritten <- since over 10 minutes my icq doesn't work anymore, wheter from suse 10.1 even from 10.0.

I have to leave .. ^{but i think if i could logon after removing directory ( in case of changing icq-number) this could become another bug..}

thank you

stephan

[root_42]

There seems to be something broken with your server side contact list, I guess. The rate limit means that you logged on and off too often. Keep icq off for 15 minutes, and you will be able to log on again.

[root_42]

Have you tried this again, stephan? Also with latest SVN version?