If I use the IOKit methods to list USB devices, I can get something like "AirPod Case", but I don't know how to get "Francisco's AirPods". I've looked around a the various keys you can ask for, but none I've found bring up these "settable" names, only the standard "product names".
I don't know the answer as a fact, but I can give you some ideas for chasing it down:
The customised name is probably transferred as part of a higher-level protocol, or via vendor specific requests, not via standardised USB device descriptors. There is a small chance it might be advertised via a vendor specific descriptor, but this seems unlikely
I don't own any AirPods, so I don't know what kind of data protocol the AirPod case uses for communicating with a Mac, but you can try to find documentation or source code for that protocol, for example in case anyone has worked out how to use them from Linux and written a tool or library for that.
Finally, you can reverse engineer it yourself, by logging the USB traffic to and from the device when using existing software that is capable of reading the name you are after. On macOS, it's possible to do this using Wireshark. Start logging USB traffic, launch the software that talks to the device, then trawl through the logs to see if you can spot the string, then work out what request caused it to be returned.
I would like to develop an application that can connect to server and uniquely identify clients then give them permissions to run a specific query on server's database.
How can I identify clients in a unique way. Is MAC address reliable enough? or should I use something like CPU id or something else?
clarification : I do not what to create a registration code for my app. As it's suppose to be a free application. I would want to detect each client by an id and decide which one could have the permissions to run a specific method on server or not.
The usual approach is to give each client a login (name + password). That way, it's easy to replace clients when they need upgrade or when they fail.
MAC address should be unique but there is no central registry which enforces this rule. There are also tools to change it, so it's only somewhat reliable.
CPU and HD IDs are harder to change but people will come complaining when their hard disk died or when they upgrade their system.
Many PCs have TPM modules which have their own IDs but they can be disabled and the IDs can be wiped. Also, there are privacy issues (people don't like it when software automatically tracks them).
Another problem with an automated ID approach is how to identify them on the server. When several clients connect for the first time in quick succession, you will have trouble to tell them apart.
This question appears to have already been asked and answered in detail (although, you may not like the answers, since they appear to add up to: it's problematic.) I agree with Xefan's comment that more details would help define your question. Here's a link to earlier discussion on this:
What is a good unique PC identifier?
before I start I realise there are a few SNMP related questions here already but not many seem to have been answered - that could mean I'm asking in the wrong place but I don't know where else to go at the moment.
I've been reading up as best I can on SNMP for a couple of days but am finding it difficult to get my head around what is meant to be happening. The idea is eventually we will integrate SNMP into our Java application server which will allow the end users to incorporate it into their pre-existing Network Management Systems(NMS).
Unfortunately I'm feeling entirely confused by what is meant to be going on. From what I understood from talking to the end users (which was unfortunately before any research) was that the monitoring allows their existing NMS to give their admin guys a view of the vital statistics in a tree type display, giving them feedback regarding different parts of the system at a high level and allowing them to dig down into specific subsystems.
From reading around we would implement an 'Agent' which has several defined interfaces allowing for GET requests etc to be processed and responded to. That makes sense but I am at a loss to work out what the format of the communication is - there don't seem to be any specific examples of what any of the messages look like, how the information is encoded.
More of my confusion though is regarding Management Information Base(MIB). I had, wrongly, assumed that the interface of the agent would allow for the monitored attributes to be requested and then in turn the values for those attributes requested. Allowing any new Agent to be started and detected without any configuration on the NMS end (with the exception of authentication in v3). This, if I understand correctly, is not the case and the Agent must instead define MIBs which can be used by the NMS to determine those attributes. My confusion is increased when people start referring to thousands of existing MIBs and that they can be reused which I don't understand. Is the intention that a single MIB definition can be used to say describe how a particular attribute of a network device (something simple like internet connected on a router:yes/no) for many different devices? If so I don't believe that our software would allow the monitoring of anything common to any other device/system but should we be looking for already exising MIBs? At the moment I don't really see any good rational for such a system, surely it would be easier for the Agent to export that information - so I'd appreciate it if someone could enlighten me!
I think it would help if I was able to setup a simple SNMP agent and some sort of client, I could begin to see the process and eventually inspect the communication between the two but am finding it difficult to find anywhere that provides any information on doing such a thing. Nagios has been recommended to us as a test 'client'/NMS but their 'get started quick' section recommends downloading a 600Mb virtual machine - surely there is a quicker way to get started?
Any help or suggestions will be appreciated, I have been through the Wiki page but it doesn't seem to go into much detail about the MIBs and the having not had to deal with anything like the referenced RFCs before, while they may contain all of the information they seem completely impenetrable to me at the moment. Or if there are any books that can be recommended for an overview and implementation of v3?
Thanks for reading and even more thanks if you think you can help!
It seems to me that you read all SNMP information piece by piece in an disorganized way. This is highly not recommended and of course lead you to confusion.
What about forgetting what you have learnt so far and dive into a good book such as Essential SNMP?
http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596008406.do
Click the Google Preview icon to preview it please.
You could not depend on a network forum to tell you the ABCs, as that's impractical I find out.
The communications interface is SNMP. That's the protocol used for transmission (usually on top of UDP). The thing that services information requests is an SNMP Agent. The thing that sends information requests is an SNMP Manager.
The definition of what information should be made available by the Agent, and requested by the Manager, goes in a MIB. A MIB is the "glue", a directory of what sort of things any particular system can/should offer. It maps numeric codes to names and types that allow us to make sense of the data, much like how a phone directory maps phone numbers to people's names and addresses.
Generally you would create and ship and use your own MIBs that can describe aspects specific to your own product, but you are supposed to service some standard information requests as well, which are defined in existing MIBs. Yes there are thousands of other pre-existing MIBs and the likelihood that you need more than one or two of these is remote. They are typically published versions of MIBs for existing products.
The conventional way to "toy around" is to install Net-SNMP (a software suite that includes an agent implementation and allows you to "bolt on" your own logic and your own MIBs fairly easily) then examine the results using a packet capturer like Wireshark.
For a fuller implementation in production you may stick with Net-SNMP, or write your own Agent software, or do what I did and create a hybrid of the two that's a little more flexible and performant but uses Net-SNMP's backend for handling all the low-level SNMP stuff.
Your first step, though, is to read a book or some other teaching material that can clear all your misconceptions, because guesswork won't cut it.
I had success using the samples from this page. Both the shell and Perl NetSNMP code was very straightforward to implement and query.
First off, The Problem:
We have a Web App with a Flash front-end that talks to our ASP.NET web service via SOAP which then deals with all of our server side code (C#).
Right now, we implement a simple user sign on in our application, storing the info in our MSSQL DB.
A client has requested what I understand to be Windows authentication through our application using the currently logged in user.
So, I have been tasked with investigating this. Nobody, including myself, has any experience in this area.
I have been reading up on some basic Active Directory information, and some simple tutorials. I understand how to get access to the directory using ADSI through code. What I'm really interested in seeing is how the entire thing should be architected. I don't want to throw together a hacky solution.
Does anyone know of a good tutorial for this kind of thing or have any advice on getting started? More importantly, does this even sound viable?
I know I haven't given much information, but feel free to ask and I will provide answers.
Thanks.
Edit:
Will, to give you an idea of the scope of this, the network will include every computer in a large hospital. So yes, this is huge. Clearly I need to start small. I would like to come up with something that will work at my office first. Maybe ~10 Windows computers on a single domain. One Domain Controller.
I am also open to any good books on the subject.
If you are going to tie into Active Directory you will want to take a look at the System.DirectoryServices namespace. The implementations can vary wildly depending on your system architecture, but this should give you a good starting point.
Enjoy!
Update: this question is specifically about protecting (encipher / obfuscate) the content client side vs. doing it before transmission from the server. What are the pros / cons on going in an approach like itune's one - in which the files aren't ciphered / obfuscated before transmission.
As I added in my note in the original question, there are contracts in place that we need to comply to (as its the case for most services that implement drm). We push for drm free, and most content providers deals are on it, but that doesn't free us of obligations already in place.
I recently read some information regarding how itunes / fairplay approaches drm, and didn't expect to see the server actually serves the files without any protection.
The quote in this answer seems to capture the spirit of the issue.
The goal should simply be to "keep
honest people honest". If we go
further than this, only two things
happen:
We fight a battle we cannot win. Those who want to cheat will succeed.
We hurt the honest users of our product by making it more difficult to use.
I don't see any impact on the honest users in here, files would be tied to the user - regardless if this happens client or server side. This does gives another chance to those in 1.
An extra bit of info: client environment is adobe air, multiple content types involved (music, video, flash apps, images).
So, is it reasonable to do like itune's fairplay and protect the media client side.
Note: I think unbreakable DRM is an unsolvable problem and as most looking for an answer to this, the need for it relates to it already being in a contract with content providers ... in the likes of reasonable best effort.
I think you might be missing something here. Users hate, hate, hate, HATE DRM. That's why no media company ever gets any traction when they try to use it.
The kicker here is that the contract says "reasonable best effort", and I haven't the faintest idea of what that will mean in a court of law.
What you want to do is make your client happy with the DRM you put on. I don't know what your client thinks DRM is, can do, costs in resources, or if your client is actually aware that DRM can be really annoying. You would have to answer that. You can try to educate the client, but that could be seen as trying to explain away substandard work.
If the client is not happy, the next fallback position is to get paid without litigation, and for that to happen, the contract has to be reasonably clear. Unfortunately, "reasonable best effort" isn't clear, so you might wind up in court. You may be able to renegotiate parts of the contract in the client's favor, or you may not.
If all else fails, you hope to win the court case.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. I do see this as more of a question of expectations and possible legal interpretation than a technical question. I don't think we can help you here. You should consult with a lawyer who specializes in this sort of thing, and I don't even know what speciality to recommend. If you're in the US, call your local Bar Association and ask for a referral.
I don't see any impact on the honest users in here, files would be tied to the user - regardless if this happens client or server side. This does gives another chance to those in 1.
Files being tied to the user requires some method of verifying that there is a user. What happens when your verification server goes down (or is discontinued, as Wal-Mart did)?
There is no level of DRM that doesn't affect at least some "honest users".
Data can be copied
As long as client hardware, standalone, can not distinguish between a "good" and a "bad" copy, you will end up limiting all general copies, and copy mechanisms. Most DRM companies deal with this fact by a telling me how much this technology sets me free. Almost as if people would start to believe when they hear the same thing often enough...
Code can't be protected on the client. Protecting code on the server is a largely solved problem. Protecting code on the client isn't. All current approaches come with stingy restrictions.
Impact works in subtle ways. At the very least, you have the additional cost of implementing client-side-DRM (and all follow-up cost, including the horde of "DMCA"-shouting lawyer gorillas) It is hard to prove that you will offset this cost with the increased revenue.
It's not just about code and crypto. Once you implement client-side DRM, you unleash a chain of events in Marketing, Public Relations and Legal. A long as they don't stop to alienate users, you don't need to bother.
To answer the question "is it reasonable", you have to be clear when you use the word "protect" what you're trying to protect against...
For example, are you trying to:
authorized users from using their downloaded content via your app under certain circumstances (e.g. rental period expiry, copied to a different computer, etc)?
authorized users from using their downloaded content via any app under certain circumstances (e.g. rental period expiry, copied to a different computer, etc)?
unauthorized users from using content received from authorized users via your app?
unauthorized users from using content received from authorized users via any app?
known users from accessing unpurchased/unauthorized content from the media library on your server via your app?
known users from accessing unpurchased/unauthorized content from the media library on your server via any app?
unknown users from accessing the media library on your server via your app?
unknown users from accessing the media library on your server via any app?
etc...
"Any app" in the above can include things like:
other player programs designed to interoperate/cooperate with your site (e.g. for flickr)
programs designed to convert content to other formats, possibly non-DRM formats
hostile programs designed to
From the article you linked, you can start to see some of the possible limitations of applying the DRM client-side...
The third, originally used in PyMusique, a Linux client for the iTunes Store, pretends to be iTunes. It requested songs from Apple's servers and then downloaded the purchased songs without locking them, as iTunes would.
The fourth, used in FairKeys, also pretends to be iTunes; it requests a user's keys from Apple's servers and then uses these keys to unlock existing purchased songs.
Neither of these approaches required breaking the DRM being applied, or even hacking any of the products involved; they could be done simply by passively observing the protocols involved, and then imitating them.
So the question becomes: are you trying to protect against these kinds of attack?
If yes, then client-applied DRM is not reasonable.
If no (for example, you're only concerned about people using your app, like Apple/iTunes does), then it might be.
(repeat this process for every situation you can think of. If the adig nswer is always either "client-applied DRM will protect me" or "I'm not trying to protect against this situation", then using client-applied DRM is resonable.)
Note that for the last four of my examples, while DRM would protect against those situations as a side-effect, it's not the best place to enforce those restrictions. Those kinds of restrictions are best applied on the server in the login/authorization process.
If the server serves the content without protection, it's because the encryption is per-client.
That being said, wireshark will foil your best-laid plans.
Encryption alone is usually just as good as sending a boolean telling you if you're allowed to use the content, since the bypass is usually just changing the input/output to one encryption API call...
You want to use heavy binary obfuscation on the client side if you want the protection to literally hold for more than 5 minutes. Using decryption on the client side, make sure the data cannot be replayed and that the only way to bypass the system is to reverse engineer the entire binary protection scheme. Properly done, this will stop all the kids.
On another note, if this is a product to be run on an operating system, don't use processor specific or operating system specific anomalies such as the Windows PEB/TEB/syscalls and processor bugs, those will only make the program even less portable than DRM already is.
Oh and to answer the question title: No. It's a waste of time and money, and will make your product not work on my hardened Linux system.