I am working on Windows with C# but this is more of a general question.
If I receive UDP packages with a UDP client they are normally removed from the receive buffer so other programs can no logner access this data.
My experiments showed that this is not the case for boradcast messages. If I connect multible programs to the same UDP port and call the receive function both application can see the broadcast packages, but only one application can see unicast packages as they are deleted when first read by the OS?? I guess...?
My question is is there a way to change this socket behaviour? can I set up my socket to preserve this data so a second programm could access it as well? Or is this not possible?
the overall goeal as you can guess is to have multible programs receive the same UDP packagees send via Unicast.
After alot of research i can confirm this is not possible with unicast packages.
You can use PCAP to achive this but not with the native UdpClient
Related
I'm writing a server that, among other things, needs to be constantly sending data in different multicast addresses. The packages being sent might be received by a client side (an app) which will be switching between the mentioned addresses.
I'm using Perfect (https://github.com/PerfectlySoft/Perfect) for writing the server side, however had no luck using the Perfect-Net module nor using CocoaAsyncSocket. How could i implement both the sender and the receiver using swift? Any could snippet would be really useful.
I've been reading about multicasting and when it comes to the receiver, i've notice that in most languages (i.e. java or c#) the receiver often indicates a port number and a multicast ip-address, but when is the connection with the server being made? When does the socket bind to the real server ip-address?
Thanks in advance
If we talk about the TCP/IP stack, only IP and UDP support broadcasts and multicasts. They're both connectionless, and this is why you see only sending and receiving to special multicast addresses, but no binds and connects. You see it in different languages because (a) protocols are language-agnostic and (b) most implementations put reasonable efforts in trying to be compatible with BSD sockets interface.
If you want that true multicast, you'll need to find a swift implementation of sockets that allow setting options. Usual names for this operation is setsockopt. Multicast sender side doesn't need anything beyond a basic UDP socket (I suggest using UDP, not IP), while sender needs to be added to a multicast group. This Python example pretty much describes it.
However, it's worth noting that routers don't route broadcasts and multicasts. Hence you cannot use it over internet. If you need to use internet in your project, I'd advise you to use TCP - or websockets if your clients are browsers - and send messages to "groups" of them manually.
I guess you actually want Perfect-Kafka or Perfect-Mosquitto - Message Queue which allows a server to publish live streams to the client side subscribers. Low-level sockets will not easily fulfill your requirement.
I am trying to implement a program that is able to send TCP packets alone by itself. Ideally I want to send a packet to a port in a computer and have it processed. This means that I am trying to do it without having a client/server files pair.
However, I am finding it really hard to do this as anywhere I look there is mention of both the client and the server files. And if I try to run the client file or the server files by themselves, it doesn't even work as they depend on each other.
Is it possible to do what I want?
Not sure why you want to do that. But in order to send such packets, you need to use API for IP raw socket (SOCK_RAW), instead of TCP.
So you can send IP packets with payload of your "crafted TCP".
I want to capture and save the data that's being sent to a certain process through internet .
Are there any tools for the job?
If not, does listening to the same port as the process that I'm trying to get data from, will get me the data?
Any help appreciated !
You can try Wireshark: http://www.wireshark.org/
Or RawCap: http://www.netresec.com/?page=RawCap
I don't know what is the data format you are trying to capture. I used these two tools to capture xml data from web service.
On Windows, use Winsock Packet Editor (WPE). You will be able to hook a process' all Winsock-related functions and capture (and even modify/block) any TCP/IP, UDP packets that the application receives or sends. For all other operating systems, you will have to either:
write your own tool that hooks various socket functions (e.g. send, recv, etc.)
or just use Wireshark which will capture all Layer-3 packets that goes through your network card. You will have to use your own knowledge of the application that you're trying to monitor in order to filter the packets that are specific to the application.
Are there any tools for the job?
Wireshark. But what have you tried?
If not, does listening to the same port as the process that i'm trying to get data from, will get me the data?
Not if you don't forward the traffic to the real destination, otherwise the other party will be waiting forever on a response, or simply timeout and close the connection. You should create something like a proxy.
Wireshark is easier.
I have no experience with sockets nor multiplayer programming.
I need to code a multiplayer mode for a game I made in c++. It's a puzzle game but the game mode will not be turn-based, it's more like cooperative.
I decided to use UDP, so I've read some tutorials, and all the samples I find decribes how to create a client that sends data and a server that receives it.
My game will be played by two players, and both will send and receive data to/from the other.
Do I need to code a client and a server?
Should I use the same socket to send and receive?
Should I send and receive data in the same port?
Thanks, I'm kind of lost.
Read how the masters did it:
http://www.bluesnews.com/abrash/chap70.shtml
Read the code:
git clone git://quake.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/quake/quake
Open one UDP socket and use sendto and recvfrom. The following file contains the functions for the network client.
quake/libs/net/nc/net_udp.c
UDP_OpenSocket calls socket (PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_UDP)
NET_SendPacket calls sendto
NET_GetPacket calls recvfrom
Do I need to code a client and a server?
It depends. For a two player game, with both computers on the same LAN, or both on the open Internet, you could simply have the two computers send packets to each other directly.
On the other hand, if you want your game to work across the Internet, when one or both players are behind a NAT and/or firewall, then you have the problem that the NAT and/or firewall will probably filter out the other player's incoming UDP packets, unless the local player goes to the trouble of setting up port-forwarding in their firewall... something that many users are not willing (or able) to do. In that case, you might be better off running a public server that both clients can connect to, which forwards data from one client to another. (You might also consider using TCP instead of UDP in that case, at least as a fallback, since TCP streams are in general likely to have fewer issues with firewalls than UDP packets)
Should I use the same socket to send and receive?
Should I send and receive data in the same port?
You don't have to, but you might as well -- there's no downside to using just a single socket and a single port, and it will simplify your code a bit.
Note that this answer is all about using UDP sockets. If you change your mind to use TCP sockets, it will almost all be irrelevant.
Do I need to code a client and a server?
Since you've chosen to to use UDP (a fair choice if your data isn't really important and benefits more from lower latency than reliable communication), you don't have much of a choice here: a "server" is a piece of code for receiving packets from the network, and your "client" is for sending packets into the network. UDP doesn't provide any mechanism for the server to communicate to the client (unlike TCP which establishes a 2 way socket). In this case, if you want to have two way communication between your two hosts, they'll each need server and client code.
Now, you could choose to use UDP broadcasts, where both clients listen and send on the broadcast address (usually 192.168.1.255 for home networks, but it can be anything and is configurable). This is slightly more complex to code for, but it would eliminate the need for client/server configuration and may be seen as more plug 'n play for your users. However, note that this will not work over the Internet.
Alternatively, you can create a hybrid method where hosts are discovered by broadcasting and listening for broadcasts, but then once the hosts are chosen you use host to host unicast sockets. You could provide fallback to manually specify network settings (remote host/port for each) so that it can work over the Internet.
Finally, you could provide a true "server" role that all clients connect to. The server would then know which clients connected to it and would in turn try to connect back to them. This is a server at a higher level, not at the socket level. Both hosts still need to have packet sending (client) and receiving (server) code.
Should I use the same socket to send and receive?
Well, since you're using UDP, you don't really have a choice. UDP doesn't establish any kind of persistent connection that they can communicate back and forth over. See the above point for more details.
Should I send and receive data in the same port?
In light of the above question, your question may be better phrased "should each host listen on the same port?". I think that would certainly make your coding easier, but it doesn't have to. If you don't and you opt for the 3rd option of the first point, you'll need a "connect back to me on this port" datafield in the "client's" first message to the server.
I am trying to make an application for iPhone that can listen for traffick on a specific network port.
A server on my network is sending out messages (different status messages for devices the server handles) on a specific port.
My problem is that when I make a thread and makePairWithSocket I block the port for others who want to send messages to the server, so I only want to listen to the traffic on a specifyed port and then check for specific heraders and then use those messages.
I know how to make the connection and talk to the server using write and read streams, but then I makePairWithSocket and block the port for all other devices on the network
Any one that has any suggestions on how to listen on a port in Objective-C without pairing with the server?
Thanks in advance
Daniel
Check out CocoaAsyncSocket. It gives you a nice and structured way (with delegates) to send and receive data... also with multiple clients. The documentation is quite good. project link
edit: Have a look at the AsyncUdpSocket class for a stateless UDP connection.
I think this requires network support well below the socket API level, perhaps at the hardware driver level, assuming the packets are even being routed to your device.