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".
Related
I'm trying to spec out the foundations for a server application who's purpose will be to..
1 'receive' tcp and/or udp packets
2 interpret the contents (i.e. header values)
To add more detail, this server will receive 'sip invites' and respond with a '302 redirect'.
I have experience with Net::Pcap and perl, and know I could achieve this by looping for filtered packets, decoding and then using something like Net::SIP to respond.
However, there's a lot of bloat in both of these modules/applications I don't need. The server will be under heavy load, and if I run TCPDUMP on it's own, it loses packets in the kernel due to server load, so worry it wont be appropriate :(
Should I be able to achieve the same thing by 'listening' on a socket (using IO::Socket for example) and decoding a packet?
Unfortunatly by debugging, it's hard to tell if IO::Socket will give me the opportunity to see a raw packet? And instead it automatically decodes the message to a readable format!
tl;dr: I want to capture lots of SIP Invites, analyse the head values, and respond with a SIP 302 redirect. Is there a better way than using tcpdump (via Net::Pcap) to achieve this?
Thanks,
Moose
Is there a better way than using tcpdump (via Net::Pcap) to achieve this?
Yes. Using libpcap (that's what you meant instead of tcpdump in that question) is a bad way to implement a TCP-based service, as you will have to reimplement much of TCP yourself (libpcap gives you raw network-layer packets), and the packets your program gets will also get delivered to the Internet protocol stack on your machine, so:
if there's nothing on your machine listening on the TCP port to which the other machines are trying to connect, the connection requests will get a RST from the TCP code and think the connection attempt failed;
if there is something on your machine listening on that port, it'll probably accept the connection, and it and your program will both try to communicate with the other machine, which will probably confuse its TCP stack and cause various bad and random things to happen.
It's not much better for UDP:
if there's nothing on your machine listening on the UDP port to which the other machines are trying to connect, the connection requests will probably get an ICMP Port Unreachable message from the UDP code, which may make it think the connection attempt failed;
if there is something on your machine listening on that port, it'll probably accept the connection, and it and your program will both try to communicate with the other machine, which will probably confuse its SIP stack and cause various bad and random things to happen.
IO:Socket will probably not give you raw packets, and that's a good thing; you won't have to implement your own IP and TCP/UDP stack. If your goal is to implement a redirect server on your machine, you have no need to receive raw packets; you want to receive SIP INVITEs with all the lower-level processing done for you by your machine's IP/TCP/UDP stack.
If you already have a SIP implementation on your machine, and you want to act as a "firewall" for it, so that, for some INVITEs, you send back a 302 redirect and prevent the SIP implementation on your machine from ever seeing the INVITEs in question, you will need to use the same mechanism that your particular OS uses to implement firewalls. There is no libpcap-like wrapper for those mechanisms, as far as I know.
I'm in the process of trying to write a chat application and I have a few issues
that I trying to work out. The application is basically a chat application that works on a Lan. One client acts as the
host and other clients can connect to the host and publicly chat among themselves. I want also the option of a client starting
a private chat with an already connected client. So what is the best way for this to happen. For example should the request message (which
contains the ip address of client) route through the host and then if the requested client wants to connect , then they initiate the connection
using ip of the requesting client. Should this also be on a separate port number. Does it matter if your application uses a number of ports.
Or, when ever a client connects to a host, the host should send them a list of users with there ip addresses, and then the client can
attempt a connection with the other client for a private chat.
Hope this all makes sense. Any help would be appreciated
Thanks
If you are just interested in a quick-and-dirty chat facility that only needs to work over a LAN, I'd suggest having all clients send and receive broadcast UDP packets on a single well-known port number. Then no server is necessary at all, and thus no discovery is necessary either, and things are a lot simpler.
If you really want to go the client-server route, though, you should have your server (aka host) machine accept TCP connections on a single well-known port, and then have it use select() or poll() to multiplex the incoming TCP connections and forward any data that comes in from each incoming TCP socket to all of the others sockets. Clients can connect via TCP to the server at this well-known port, but the clients will have to have some way of knowing what IP address to connect to... either from having the user type in the IP address of the server, or by some discovery mechanism (broadcast UDP packets could be used to implement that). This way is a lot more work though.
I'm all for creating my own but depending on time constraints sometimes I look for alternatives like this I used it in a company I worked at before. It's really good. But if you decide to make your own you first have to map out a logic, structure, Database and so on before you even think about code..
I'm just reading about TCP and UDP and from what I've read when the packet gets encapsulated in the IP protocol and the header gets added is it not possible to create a false IP address at this stage?
Granted, the response will never be received on your connection, but is this possible?
I do not want to do this btw. I'm in no way associated with immoral ethics. It's just something that I had to ask whilst reading about TCP and UDP. I'm actually learning how to use sockets in C++ for a game I'm working on.
Yes, this is possible.
Use raw sockets and craft your own packets
Use scapy, hping, etc
Search for "packet crafting"
EDIT
A nice scapy tutorial that teaches you to send lots of valid and invalid stuff is here.
I'm trying to find a way for client to know socket server ip:port, without explicitly defining it. Generally I have a socket server running on portable device that's connect to network over DHCP (via WiFi), and ideally clients should be able to find it automaticaly.
So I guess a question is whether socket server can somehow broadcast it's address over local network? I think UPnP can do this, but I'd rather not get into it.
I'm quite sure that this question was asked on Stack lot's of times, but I could find proper keywords to search for it.
One method of doing this is via UDP broadcast packets. See beej's guide if you're using BSD sockets. And here is Microsoft's version of the same.
Assuming all the clients of the application are on the same side of a router then a broadcast address of 255.255.255.255 (or ff02::1 for IPv6) should be more than adequate.
Multicast is another option, but if this is a LAN-only thing I don't think that's necessary.
Suggestion
Pick a UDP port number (say for the sake of an example we pick 1667). The client should listen to UDP messages on 255.255.255.255:1667 (or whatever the equivalent is. e.g.: IPEndPoint(IPAddress.Any, 1667)). The server should broadcast messages on the same address.
Format Suggestion
UDP Packet: First four bytes as a magic number, next four bytes an IPv4 address (and you might want to add other things like a server name).
The magic number is just in case there is a collision with another application using the same port. Check both the length of the packet and the magic number.
Server would broadcast the packet at something like 30 second time intervals. (Alternatively you could have the server send a response only when a client sends a request via broadcast.)
Some options are:
DNS-SD (which seems to translate to "Apple Bonjour"): it has libraries on macOS, but it needs to install the Bonjour service on Windows. I don't know the Linux situation for this. So, it's multi-platform but you need external libraries.
UDP broadcast or multicast
Some other fancy things like Ethernet broadcast, raw sockets, ...
For your case (clients on a WiFi network), a UDP broadcast packet would suffice, it's multi-platform, and not too difficult to implement from the ground up.
Choosing this option, the two main algorithms are:
The server(s) send an "announce" broadcast packet, with clients listening to the broadcast address. Once clients receive the "announce" packet, they know about the server address. Now they can send UDP packets to the server (which will discover their addresses for sending a reply), or connect using TCP.
The client(s) send a "discover" broadcast packet, with the server(s) listening to the broadcast address. Once the server(s) receive the "discover" packet, it can reply directly to it with an "announce" UDP packet.
One or the other could be better for your application, it depends.
Please consider these arguments:
Servers usually listen to requests and send replies
A server that sends regular "announce" broadcast packets over a WiFi network, for a client that may arrive or not, wastes the network bandwidth, while a client knows exactly when it needs to poll for available servers, and stop once it's done.
As a mix of the two options, a server could send a "gratuitous announce" broadcast packet once it comes up, and then it can listen for "discover" broadcast requests from clients, replying directly to one of them using a regular UDP packet.
From here, the client can proceed as needed: send direct requests with UDP to the server, connect to a TCP address:port provided in the "announce" packet, ...
(this is the scheme I used in an application I am working on)
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.