Is there any protocol, API or software in existence that can send data/IM/etc directly from one device to another with no server?
Can you not use HTTP GET/POST/DELETE directly between two devices when their device data is known to the user(s)?
I would very much like to know if there is ANY software/protocols that can do this.
thank you!
The internet is build on the Internet Protocol suite. This suite has 5 different layers of protocols: The physical layer, the link layer, the network layer, the transport layer and the application layer. Each depends on the one before.
If you just use the browser, by default HTTP (application layer) is used, which relies on TCP (transport layer), which relies on IP (v4 or v6, network layer), which relies on ethernet (link layer), which finally relies on the actual cable that's plugged into your computer (for WiFi, the first three are the same but the last two differ if I'm not mistaken).
Now to your question: Is there any protocol, API or software in existence that can send data/IM/etc directly from one device to another with no server?
Yes there is. I suggest you start looking at protocols that are in the application layer. To highlight a few standards next to HTTP(S): FTP is for file transfer, IMAP is for emails clients, SMTP is for email servers and SSH is a secure shell which can also be used to tunnel data through.
For your specific case, I think either FTP (FTPS if you want it over SSL), or SSH can be a solution, but it's hard to know for sure without the specifics.
The only thing that these protocols have in common is that one of the two computers will act like server and the other computer as client. This has as downside that port-forwarding might be necessary.
If you've chosen the protocol you'd like to use, then you're up for the next step, selecting a program that can do that for you. For HTTP(S), I'd recommend Apache. If you're using Linux and chose SSH, then you're in luck, there is a build in SSH server in Linux, you can use that. For other protocols, you might just want to search yourself, as I do not have any suggestions.
I hope this answers most of your questions!
Desirius
In browser context, WebRTC is probably what you are looking for: It allows user to user communications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebRTC
https://webrtc.org/
Related
I am currently writing an app that is planned to control a machine. The machine is controlled by a Raspberry Pi, which offers an API (via flask) to the local wifi. The app on the other hand is also connected to the same wifi and accesses the API.
To make sure that not everybody who downloads the app and is connected to the wifi, can control the machine, I setup some basic authentication.
My next step was actually to switch to https with a self-signed certificate. But the machine(/the raspberry pi) and the app need to be in the same wifi to communicate. So there are actually no intermediaries in the communication. This again makes me wonder if there is any possibility of a man-in-the-middle-attack and if I really need https communication.
So my question is: do I need https here?
A subjective answer. First you have to decide what is the risk to your machine if someone/thing gets control of it. For most consumer applications, within the household maybe that risk is low (maybe not - what about an irrigation controller or heater?). Then why and with what probability would someone WANT to hack in (maybe if your machine is a best seller across the globe it might be a fun target).
You might be surprised at how many devices are on a normal households wifi - dozens at least. Furthermore - while most consumer devices don't rely on inbound access (most use a website to bounce control/commands through) there are probably a lot more inbound (from the internet) ports that have been opened through firewalls than you imagine.
So - I do think there are many opportunities for MITM in a normal household wifi. Whether that would be a concern in early product development - that's up to you.
This SO answer: Is it possible to prevent man-in-the-middle attack when using self-signed certificates? might be useful when actually implementing.
we are replacing websocket instead of ssh-tunnel. May i know how websocket is better than ssh-tunnel?
WebSocket is a protocol designed for 2-way real-time communication between browsers and servers to replace hacky solutions like long polling and XHR streaming.
SSH is a protocol designed for operating network services securely over an insecure network. Usually it's used for remote logins, file transfers, however it can be used for any protocol, however a few modifications need to be made.
The difference between them is, well, WebSocket is designed to be used for the browser and has support there. However, SSH is a more general protocol and can be used for more however it is not supported by browsers directly, but through proxies which bridge WebSocket to SSH.
There is nothing inherently "better" about WebSocket against SSH. It just depends on your use case, if you want to make a remote terminal or something for your sysadmins, use SSH. If you want to use it for, say, a real time chat in the browser, use WebSocket.
I have a concox GT06 device from which I want to send tracking data to my AWS Server.
The coding protocol manual that comes with it only explains the data structure and protocol.
How does my server receive the GPS data collected by my tracker?
Verify if your server allows you to open sockets, which most low cost solutions do NOT allow for security reasons (i recommend using an Amazon EC2 virtual machine as your platform).
Choose a port on which your application will listen to incoming data, verify if it is open (if not open it) and code your application (i use C++) to listen to that port.
Compile and run your application on the server (and make sure that it stays alive).
Configure your tracker (usually by sending an sms to it) to send data to your server's IP and to the port which your application is listening to.
If you are, as i suspect you are, just beginning, consider that you will invest 2 to 3 weeks to develop this solution from scratch. You might also consider looking for a predeveloped tracking platform, which may or may not be acceptable in terms of data security.
You can find examples and tutorials online. I am usually very open with my coding and would gladly send a copy of the socket server, but, in this case, for security reasons, i cannot do so.
Instead of direct parsing of TCP or UDP packets you may use simplified solution putting in-between middleware backends specialized in data parsing e.g. flespi.
In such approach you may use HTTP REST API to fetch each new portion of data from trackers sent to you dedicated IP:port (called channel) or even send standardized commands with HTTP REST to connected devices.
At the same time it is possible to open MQTT connection using standard libraries and receive converted into JSON messages from devices as MQTT in real time, which is even better then REST due to almost zero latency.
If you are using python you may take a look at open-source flespi_receiver library. In this approach with 10 lines of code you may have on your EC2 whole parsed into JSON messages from Concox GT06.
I have setup a windows 2003 ftp server and using chilkat to connect to this ftp inside my customized application. My application is developed in VB6 with ftp support of chilkat. The application works on different places of the city and connects to my ftp. Unable to access ftp and transfer files using the customised application, from some networks like idea netsetter / bsnl. It works perfect on other networks.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Sam
This is likely to be a firewall issue at the client end. FTP is often blocked by firewalls.
Just as well, FTP has its problems making it a less than ideal alternative. There are better options such as SFTP or FTPS but support for those is limited in Windows and you'll have to buy both server and client pieces to use one of them.
Fewer firewalls block HTTP and HTTPS though some are finicky enough to block traffic that doesn't look like Web browsing. Stiil, your odds of success go up substantially.
An obvious choice might be to use WebDAV. IIS supports WebDAV and it is pretty easy to write simple WebDAV client logic in VB6 based on one of the many HTTP components available. I'd probably use XmlHttpRequest or WinHttpRequest for that. A search ought to turn up several VB6 classes written to wrap one of them to support WebDAV client operations. You can also buy WebDAV client libraries.
Stick to using HTTPS (which means you need a server cetificate for IIS) and you won't have passwords going over the network in the clear. Even if you use HTTP you'll be no worse off than using FTP, plus it'll work through the vast majority of firewalls except those that specifically block non-browsing HTTP requests.
This could be a firewall configuration on the Client or Server. You're not going to be able to do much about the client, but for the server it may depend on whether your doing Active or Passive FTP connections.
If you are doing Active connections, make sure ports 20 and 21 are open.
If you're doing Passive connections, you may want to check out this article about configuring the PassivePortRange in Server 2003 FTP- http://support.microsoft.com/?id=555022.
I'm looking for a server-based protocol. (so that the communication would look like
client1 <----------> server <----------> client2
(so far XMPP perfectly does the job here)
BUT also I want to be able to switch to peer to peer mode, so whenever possible, the devices would communicate directly.
I want to use it mainly for small file transfer(mostly up to 2MB), but for other (plain) text communication as well.
EDIT: It should work under Windows 7 and would be good if that worked under other windowses as well
Any ideas? Thank you.