I'd like to make a simple program to send and fetch emails from selected email. Is there any simple methods of doing that? I searched, and found a couple of examples like https://developer.ibm.com/swift/2017/05/31/4675/ , but is there any way to simplify that? (to simplify code to up couple of functions or use only basics of that? Instead of loading frameworks, or loading only needed elements?) It's for Mac OS X prog.
Main question is is it possible to simplify this process and how to fetch email (one or more) from server back to app or something similar.
Is there any MessageUI equivalent for mac os?
I have a PLC that already have a big map (3000 registers). I have a PC software to talk to the PLC.
Now the customer want to re-arrange the registers. I wonder whether I can map the same logic to a second map. example, to my software, Modbus ID 1: 40001 is to move a valve, and customer want to move to 40100. so is there a way to do the same thing to both ID 1:40001, and ID2:40100?
This is a general question. if you need to know my PLC underlining programming language, I have to take a look.
This should not be a problem at all.
You need to provide more information though if you want how this is to be done.
The problem is actually if for example you need to move 40001 to 40100 and 40100 to 40200, then you need to be sure that the 40100 was moved to 40200 before you overwrite it, as I understand, this is not an issue for you, you are moving to an entire new area. If so, then you are good to go, provide PLC type, software and version, etc. to get a precise answer
I am new to Raspberry and VOIP. I am interested to make a door intercom system using raspberry, as I read most of the post here and those are really helpful,one of the raspberry is acting as server (Asterisk and PBX). I was able to call using sflphonebut that was only for desktop mode and I am interested to call using CLI and for that I installed "PJSIP" as reffered by most of users, but don't have any idea what to do next (I mean how should i start). As it is written after installation I am supposed to try for "pjsua" and "pjsystest" in pjsip-apps/bin, but it doesn't ring any bell for me.
Sorry for my level as beginner but if you don't begin how are you supposed to masters it.
I shall be very thankful.
so i can't explain all of the stuff you need to know, but with this Site you should be able to register to you PBX. It's an documentation to the high level API of PJSUA. If you go further on that site they will lead you through the things you have to do to establish a call.
Although this can be very frustrating because there are many error that can appear. There are some python test application under pjproject/pjsip-apps/src/python/samples, here you should firstly try to establish a call between two clients to be sure you server is well configured.
Just for info, the dest_uri you have to give in the call.py is like so sip:ip:port and you have to change the values in the register.py to your client infos. Then run the register.py in one shell and the call.py in an other shell.
Hopefully i could help you over some barriers, feel free to ask if something was unclear.
If anyone can help me with this, I'd be eternally in their debt.
Without getting bogged down in details, I'm trying to program an app so
that, for instance, while the application is currently launched, if I say the words,
"activate function A", a specific function which already exists in my app, is activated.
Have I explained myself clearly? In other words, on the screen of the phone is a button
which says "function A". When the software is "armed" and in listening mode, I want
the user to have the ability to simply say the words "activate function A",
(or any other phrase of my choice) and the screen option will be selected without requiring
the user to press the button with their hand, but rather, the option is selected/activated
via voice command.
My programmers and I have faced difficulties incorporating this new voice command capability,
even though it is obviously possible to do google searches with voice command, for instance.
Other voice command apps are currently in circulation, such as SMS dictation apps,
email writing apps, etc, so it is clearly possible to create voice command apps.
Does anyone know if this is possible, and if so, do you have advice on how to implement
this function?
QUESTION 2
Assuming that we are unable to activate function A via voice command, is it possible
to use voice command to cause the phone to place a call, and this call is received
by our server? The server then 'pings' the iPhone and instructs it to activate function A?
For this workaround to work, I would need the ability to determine the exact phrase.
In other words, the user can't be forced to use the word "call function A". I need the
ability to select the phrase which launches the function.
Hopefully I've been clear.
In other words, as a potential workaround to the obstacles we've been facing regarding
using voice command to activate a specific function within our app, is it possible
to harness the voice command capability already present in the phone? aka, to place
a phone call? And then this call is received by our server, and the server
accordingly pings the phone which placed the call, and instructs it to activate the function?
I obviously understand the necessity for the app to be currently launched, before it
would be possible for my application to receive the instruction from the server.
If someone can help me to solve this vexing problem, it is not hyperbole to say that
you would change my life!
Thanks so much in advance for any help one of you kind souls can provide!!!
Michael
I don't believe the iPhone comes with any built in speech recognition functions. Consider speaking to Nuance about buying and embedding one of their speech recognition engines. They have DragonDictate for iPhone, but they also provide a fair amount of other recognition engines that serve different functions. Embedded solutions is clearly one of their areas of expertise.
Your other path of pushing the audio to your server may be more involved than you expect. Typically this process involves end-pointing (when is speech present) and identification of basic characteristics so the raw stream doesn't need to be passed. Again, investigation into the speech recognition engine you intend to use may provide you with the data processing details you need. Passing continuous, raw voice from all phones to your servers is probably not going to be practical.
I have developed a software piece (with C and Python) which I want to protect with dongle so that copying and reverse engineering becomes hard enough. My dongle device comes with an api which provides these:
Check dongle existence
Check proper dongle
Write into a memory location in dongle
Read from a memory location in dongle etc. (I think the rests aren't that good..)
What I can do in the source code so that it becomes harder to crack. Dongle provider suggested that, I should check proper dongle existence in a loop or after an event, or I should use the dongle memory in an efficient way. But how? I have no idea how crackers crack. Please shed some light. Thanks in advance.
P.S: Please don't suggest obfuscating. I have already done that.
First of all, realize that the dongle will only provide a little bit of an obstacle. Someone who knows what they're doing will just remove the call to the dongle and put in a 'true' for whatever result that was called. Everyone will tell you this. But there are roadblocks you can add!
I would find a key portion of your code, something that's difficult or hard to know, something that requires domain knowledge. Then put that knowledge onto the key. One example of this would be shader routines. Shader routines are text files that are sent to a graphics card to achieve particular effects; a very simple brightness/contrast filter would take less than 500 characters to implement, and you can store that in the user space on most dongles. Then you put that information on the key, and only use information from the key in order to show images. That way, if someone tries to just simply remove your dongle, all the images in your program will be blacked out. It would take someone either having a copy of your program, grabbing the text file from the key, and then modifying your program to include that text file, and then knowing that that particular file will be the 'right' way to display images. Particulars of implementation depend on your deployment platform. If you're running a program in WPF, for instance, you might be able to store a directx routine onto your key, and then load that routine from the key and apply the effect to all the images in your app. The cracker then has to be able to intercept that directx routine and apply it properly.
Another possibility is to use the key's random number generation routines to develop UIDs. As soon as someone removes the dongle functionality, all generated UIDs will be zeroed.
The best thing to do, though, is to put a domain specific function onto the dongle (such as the entire UID generation routine). Different manufacturers will have different capabilities in this regard.
How much of a roadblock will these clevernesses get you? Realistically, it depends on the popularity of your program. The more popular your program, the more likely someone will want to crack it, and will devote their time to doing so. In that scenario, you might have a few days if you're particularly good at dongle coding. If your program is not that popular (only a few hundred customers, say), then just the presence of a dongle could be deterrent enough without having to do anything clever.
Crackers will crack by sniffing the traffic between your app and the dongle and either disabling any code that tests for dongle presence or writing code to emulate the dongle (e.g. by replaying recorded traffic), whichever looks easier.
Obfuscation of the testing code, and many scattered pieces of code that perform tests in different ways, as well as separating spatially and temporally the effect of the test (disabling/degrading functionality, displaying a warning etc.) from the test itself make the former method harder.
Mutating the content of the dongle with each test based on some random nonce created each run or possibly even preserved between runs, so that naively recording and replaying the traffic does not work, will make the latter method harder.
However, with the system as described, it is still straightforward to emulate the dongle, so sooner or later someone will do it.
If you have the ability to execute code inside the dongle, you could move code that performs functions critical to your application there, which would mean that the crackers must either rederive the code or break the dongle's physical security - a much more expensive proposal (though still feasible; realise that there is no such thing as perfect security).
How to maximize protection with a simple dongle?
Use API together with Enveloper if an enveloper exists for your resulting file format. This is a very basic rule. Because our enveloper is already equipped with some anti-debugging and obfuscating methods to prevent common newbie hackers to give up hacking the program. Only using enveloper is also not recommended, because once a hacker can break the enveloper protection in other program, they can also break yours.
Call dongle APIs in a LOT of places in your application. For example when first start up, when opening a file, when a dialog box opens, and before processing any information. Also maybe do some random checking even when there's nothing done at all.
Use more than one function to protect a program. Do not just only use find function to look for a plugged dongle.
Use multiple dlls/libraries (if applicable) to call dongle functions. In case one dll is hacked, then there are still other parts of the software that uses the functions from another dll. For example, copying sdx.dll to print.dll, open.dll, and other names, then define the function calls from each dll with different names.
If you use a dll file to call dongle functions, bind it together with the executable. There are quite some programs capable of doing this; for example PEBundle. 3
I have got this article on PRLOG and found it quite useful on maximizing protection with a simple dongle. Maybe this link may help you
Maximizing Protection with a Simple Dongle for your Software
You can implement many check points in your application.
I don't know if you use HASP, but unfortunatelly, dongles can be emulated.
You may want to look into using Dinkey Dongles for your copy protection.
It seems a very secure system and the documentation gives you tips for improving your overall security using the system.
http://www.microcosm.co.uk/dongles.php
Ironically, the thing you want to discourage is not piracy by users, but theft by vendors. The internet has become such a lawless place that vendors can steal and resell your software at will. You have legal recourse in some cases, and not in others.
Nothing is fool-proof, as previously stated. Also, the more complex your security is, the more likely it is to cause headaches or problems for legitimate users.
I'd say the most secure application is always the one tied closest to the server. Sadly, then users worry about it being spyware.
If you make a lot of different calls to your dongle, then maybe the cracker will just emulate your dongle -- or find a single point of failure (quite common to change one or two bytes and all your calls are useless). It is a no-win situation.
As the author of PECompact, I always tell customers that they can not rely on anything to protect their software -- as it can and will be cracked if a dedicated cracker goes after it. The harder you make it, the more of a challenge (fun) it is to them.
I personally use very minimal protection techniques on my software, knowing these facts.
Use smartcard + encrypt/decrypt working files through secret function stored in card. Then software can be pirated, but it will not able to open properly encrypted working files.
I would say that if someone wants to crack your software protection, they will do so. When you say 'hard enough' - how should 'enough' be interpreted?
A dongle will perhaps prevent your average user from copying your software - so in that sense it is already 'enough'. But anyone who feels the need and is able to circumvent the dongle will likely be able to get past any other scheme that you engineer.