I have a question regarding BLE HCI API documentation on STM32WB
https://www.st.com/resource/en/application_note/an5270-stm32wb-bluetooth-low-energy-wireless-interface-stmicroelectronics.pdf
There are 4 functions described:
Adds new device to the whitelist
hci_le_add_device_to_white_list()
Removes device from the whitelist
hci_le_remove_device_from_white_list()
Gets max number of devices in whitelist
hci_le_read_white_list_size()
Clears all devices in whitelist
hci_le_clear_white_list()
I am trying to implement whitelisting functionality in my application, so only whitelisted devices could connect to my STM.
My question is, how does one get a list of all devices already in the whitelist, so I can check if new connected device must actually be added or it's already in there. There is no mention of such function in the documentation.
The HCI protocol has no such functionality. The solution is that the host keeps track of it, i.e. has a copy of the list reflecting the state of the controller. That should not be an issue because the host knows the commands it has sent to the controller. The list in the controller is cleared upon reset.
Related
I've been searching ways to get router devices list on my network and I'm asking for your help. I've found few protocols such as IRDP, LLDP, CDP, MNDP which i can might try however, they mixed my mind completely.
To sum up, I have a network which contains many router devices from different manufacturers.I want to get them programmaticaly by sending a request over network. Which request should i send ?
I'm using ForcebindIP to point an app at a specific network adapter, like this:
forcebindip -i 192.168.0.5 MyCSharpApp.exe
This works fine and the app isn't aware (or doesn't access) any of the other network adapters on the PC.
Is it possible to restrict ForceBindIP to outbound traffic only leaving the app to receive data from any local network adapter? Or even to specify a network adapter for outbound and another for inbound traffic?
I can't find an extra startup parameter for ForceBindIP that does this.
I'd appreciate any help with this.
If I get your problem correctly, you want to bind your application to listen for packets on all available interfaces but return packets to only through one given interface. I also assume it's a server application and you don't have neiter source code nor control over its behaviour.
Disclosure: I do not know how ForceBindIP works internally, I'm basing my understanding of it on this passage from the website:
it will then inject a DLL (BindIP.dll) which loads WS2_32.DLL into memory and intercepts the bind(), connect(), sendto(), WSAConnect() and WSASendTo() functions, redirecting them to code in the DLL which verifies which interface they will be bound to and if not the one specified, (re)binds the socket
Problems to overcome
I don't believe your desired configuration is possible with just one application level DLL injector. I'll list a few issues that ForceBindIP will have to overcome to make it work:
to listen to a socket, application has to bind() it to a unique protocol-address-port combination first. An application can bind itself to either a specific address or a wildcard (i.e. listen on all interfaces). Apparently, one can bind to wildcard and specific address simultaneously as outlined in this SO question. This however will be two different sockets from the application standpoint. Therefore your application will have to know how to handle this sort of traffic.
When accepting client connection, accept() will create a new socket and parameters on that are managed by Windows, I don't believe there's an API to intercept binding here - by this time the connection is considered established.
Now imagine, we somehow got a magic socket. We can receive packets on one interface and send to another. The client (and all routing equipment on the way) will have to be aware that two packets originating from two different source IP addresses are actually part of the same connection and be able to assemble the TCP session (or correctly merge UDP streams).
You can have multiple gefault gateways with different priorities and rules (which is a whole different topic to explore) but as far as I'm aware that's not going to solve your particular issue: majority of routing protocols assume links are symmetric and expect packets to keep within same interface. There are special cases like asymmetric routing and network interface teaming but they have to be implemented on per-interface level.
One potential solution
One way to achieve what you're after (I don't know enough about your environment to claim it will work), will be to create a virtual interface, set it into yet another IP network, bind your application to it, then use firewall (to, say, allow multicast backets into the "virtual" network) and routing from that network to required default gateway with metric set to 1. I also suspect just any Windows will not be that flexible, so you might need like a Server Edition.
I am sorry this didn't turn out to be the ready-to-fly solution, I however am hoping this gives you more context to the problem you are facing and points you into other directions to explore.
You can use Set-NetAdapterAdvancedProperty command in Powershell to set the flow control of your specified adapter
To get the names and properties of all the network adapter :-
Get-NetAdapterAdvancedProperty -Name "*"
Suppose you want the network adapter named "Ethernet 2" to be only used to receive data from internet then type :-
Set-NetAdapterAdvancedProperty -Name "Ethernet 2" -DisplayName "Flow Control" -DisplayValue "Rx Enabled"
You can find more in :
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/netadapter/set-netadapteradvancedproperty?view=win10-ps
Microsoft winsock example has a usage in their example for limiting a socket to only send or receive mode. It might help.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winsock/complete-client-code
Outbount and Inbount limits are not imposed while binding. But latter or when connection is established.
Line of code pertaining to this in client code is toward the end.
// shutdown the connection since no more data will be sent
iResult = shutdown(ConnectSocket, SD_SEND);
We have an already running MQTT setup for communication between smart home devices and remote server, for remotely controlling the devices. Now we want to integrate our devices with Google Home and Alexa. These two use HTTP for communication with third party device clouds.
I have implemented this for Google Home and after receiving the request to device cloud, the request is converted to MQTT. This MQTT request is then sent to smart home device. The device cloud waits for few seconds to receive reply from smart home device. If no reply is received within predefined time, it then sends failure HTTP response to Google Home else it sends the received reply.
Is there a better way to handle this? Since this is a commercial project I want to get this implemented in the correct way.
Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks
We're using AWS IoT and I think it's a good way to handle IoT issues, below are some features of it:
Certification, each device is a thing and attached its own policy, it's security
Shadow, it's device's current state JSON document, The Device Shadow service acts as an intermediary, allowing devices and
applications to retrieve and update a device's shadow
Serverless, we use lambda to build skill and servers, it's flexible
Rule, we use it to intercept MQTT messages so that we can report device's state changing to Google and Alexa. BTW, to Google, Report State implementation has become mandatory for all partners launch & certify.
You can choose either MQTT or HTTP
It’s time-consuming but totally worth it! We've sold 8k+ products, so far so good.
At least Google Home doesn't really require synchronous operation there. Once you get the EXECUTE-intent via their API, you just need to sent that to your device (but it doesn't necessarily has to report its state back).
Once its state changes, you either store it for further QUERY-intents or provide this data to the Google Homegraph server using the "Report State" interface.
I'm developing gBridge.io as a project providing quite similar functionality (but for another target group). There, it is strictly split as described: A HTTP endpoint listener reacts to commands from Google Home and sends it to a cache, where it is eventually sent to the matching MQTT topic. Another worker is listening to MQTT topics from the users and storing there information in the cache, so it can be sent back to Google once required.
I'd like my Pinocc.io lead scout to make a POST request (e.g. to inform a remote service of an event that has been triggered).
Note that I don't want to listen to a constant stream the results (as detailed here) as I don't want to be constantly connected to the HQ (I'm going to enable the wi-fi connection only when required to minimize battery usage), and the events I'm detecting are infrequent.
I would have thought that this is a very common use case, yet I can find no examples of the lead scout POSTing any messages.
I posted the same message directly on the Pinoccio website and I got this answer from an Admin
Out of the gate, that's not supported via HQ. Mainly because to get as
real-time performance between API/HQ and a Lead Scout, it makes most
sense to leave a TCP socket open continually, and transfer data that
way. HTTP, as you know, requires a connection, setup, transfer, and
teardown upon each request.
However, doesn't mean you can't get it
working. In fact, you can do both if you wanted—leave the main TCP
socket connected to HQ, and have a separate TCP client socket connect
to any site/server you want and send whatever you like. It will
require a custom Bootstrap, but you can then expose any aspect of that
functionality to HQ/ScoutScript directly.
If you take a look at this code, that's the client object you'd use to open an HTTP connection.
So in a nutshell the lead scout cannot make a POST request. To do so you'll need to create a custom bootstrap (e.g. using the Arduino IDE).
I installed an Obi100 (VoIP device with RJ11 to connect normal phones) behind my router, which has UPNP disabled and no ports forwarded. Somehow, it still receives VoIP calls and I am confused how that works.
I was getting a bunch of spam phone calls that weren't even going through my voip provider, so I think they were able to send the calls directly to my Obi100. I fixed that with a special filter rule in the Obi100, but I don't even see how someone could contact the Obi100 from outside anyway.
I believe the Obi devices use Google TCP based APIs to send/receive calls instead of SIP which is what many would assume when they hear VoIP. You were probably receiving inbound calls to your google account once they see you are "online" when your obi device connects with google. The setting probably disables announcing your availability.