I had an idea tonight. Its about developing a game on Alexa where she is telling you a Story and you are the Player who is able to direct the Story in any way he wants to with the decisions he can make.
So an example would be:
[Some Story] .. where do you want to Go:
Pub for 50$
Hotel for 100$
Stay outside for freue
And the User can now decide where He wants to stay and then the Story continous and for example if you stay Out you get robbed and if you Go to the Pub you wake up with headache the next day.
So my question is how am I able to realise this in a smart way so the decisions can affect the Story Line.
My First thought was to Store the complete Story in a 2d String Array to Jump around different Stories but if this becomes a bigger there must be another way.
And I need to be able to Store the Point where I Stopped. Yet I have no idea of how to die this.
You can store the story and the user's progress in a database, either by writing an Alexa skill which sends requests to an Amazon Lambda function you would write or a custom web service you would write. Check out this documentation for how to get started writing Alexa skills.
Working at a company, I've been set to develop a print service solution which will be used from multiple platforms. The service should be available at least from Windows (native print dialog), OSX, IOS and Android. I need to be able to see which user is printing, how many pages etc.
I'm looking for a system like CUPS for Windows or Linux, which allows me add/connect to this payment system. The payment system confirms the user have enough points to be able to print the given document. The system should be as transparent as possible for the user and he/she should be able to print like a normal network printer.
The payment system is an existing product, so my system should only handle printing and user authentication.
My first thought was to develop a simple listener that would be running on the server and the clients could connect to, add files to the print queue and print if they had enough points. How ever I could not find any tutorial or similar projects for this approach. Therefore I'm looking into adjusting an already existing product for my needs.
I have made a drawing of how I think the system should look like
I found a solution using CUPS with Tea4Cups. Tea4Cups provides pre/post-hooks where the user can define some scripts/commands to run before and after the document is sent to the printer.
More information about this here:
https://serverfault.com/questions/208268/run-command-before-and-after-printing-with-cups
Run a script when user press print, and not start spooling before script ends (linux, cups)
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.
I'd like to copy out some data from the iPhone field test mode. Is there any way to do it? I'm using the data for testing, so it's not necessary to require App Store approval.
Since the field test mode is a built-in application that gathers information on the phone and its network, you can't really do anything to interact with it.
The information that the application gathers is likely taken from the private API. If there's specific information you're tying to get, I would ask a more specific question here on stackoverflow about it.
Other than for app launch shortcuts, which should only be provided by the O/S, what are the legitimate uses of things like Windows keyboard hooks? It seems to me that we only have problems with things like key loggers because operating systems provide hooks to do things that should not be permitted by anyone under any condition except the O/S kernel itself.
EDIT: OK, so given some legitimate places where they may be required, should not the O/S provide a high level ability to globally turn them off, and only allow exceptions on a program-by-program basis?
I'm currently working on a mobile application platform / hardware abstraction layer for an enterprise client, and one requirement was that a screensaver would be brought up after a certain period of inactivity. Since mobile devices don't have mice to move, "activity" consists of key presses or screen taps. One of our devices doesn't have a touchscreen, and, to make a long story longer, the mobile hardware vendor didn't properly implement the Win32 API calls that would allow me to get the time since the last user input.
Since the hardware vendor was unwilling to implement the Win32 API properly, the next best way I knew of to ensure that my console application could trap key presses in any application on the system was to install a global keyboard hook.
That said, I agree that the average consumer scenario is very different from mine, and the OS should allow the user to whitelist activities like this.
Not true, there are environments where the owner of the computer may want to stop things such as Ctrl+Alt+Delete... example, a Kiosk, or... .... Best Buy?
For example I have installed two applications;
One maps Windows-V as paste unformatted text
Another one modifies how caps lock works
I think both of them require a hook.
I wrote an app that let me place virtual sticky notes on my monitor. I used an OS keyboard hook to bind a hotkey to it.
I had an option in settings to disable the hook.
There may not be a lot of legitimate uses. However, I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't intentionally limit the features of a system, simply to make it more secure.
Also, a key-logger isn't a bad thing if you know it's there and you installed it yourself.