Since I'm not strong in C++, is it possible in a native/hybrid app to use a P/Invoke call to call native APIs from C# code?
So far what I have seen is COM interop where you have to code the bulk of what you want to do in native C++.
Any possibility here and if so how?
No. At least not that we know of. You have to create COM wrappers for native functions.
Various Marshaling APIs, which makes P/Invoke tick, are off-limits.
WP7 apps run under silverlight - the best place to learn about the security model and why p/invoke is not possible is here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd470128(v=vs.95).aspx
As you can see the restriction is quite deep routed in the framework.
It still might be possible to run proper .NET CF executables in the future though if we can get it installed.
pInvoke
I just met a guy today, who successfully published WP7 app, that uses pInvoke - he just filled the Technical Exception form and ... done
It's used for muting system volume when the phone is in range of specified WiFi network (using BG agent) - for example when in range of school Wifi, turn the speaker off.
http://www.windowsphone.com/en-US/apps/6813ea1f-8d71-4ad5-a6d2-f80c193c6ac9
Can anybody confirm this actually works? He haven't tested it, because it won't work in emulator and even not in default developer unlock.
Here's the code he used, disassembled from the app:
http://pastebin.com/PfFm9Wxg
Do you know about any other apps, except apps from OEMs and Microsoft, that use pInvoke?
This gave me an idea, what else could be possible using small use of pInvoke? Maybe even something lot of users are asking for, like battery status on the start screen, who knows?
Thread Moved To WP7 Q&A
This is a development section, not Q&A. Please post in the correct section!
OK, a few things:
P/Invoke not working is *very* well documented. The DllImport attribute *appears* to be available, but calling a function that uses it invariably fails. The work-around for native code access is to use COM. There's also a project to re-implement DllImport.
Native code access has been available to homebrew developers for about a year, now. There are many apps which use it, ranging from web servers to registery browsers to yes, even an app that shows your battery status as a live tile on your Start screen...
These apps are not, however, permitted by Microsoft's Marketplace rules. It may be possible to get an exemption (some Marketplace apps do use native code) but by default, all apps that try to use native APIs (either via COM or P/Invoke) are automatically detected and rejected during analysis of the app prior to its approval.
As for the code you linked, it doesn't even compile (WP7 doesn't include CharSet.None, apparently). If you remove the CharSet directive, or if you set it to CharSet.Auto, it will compile but fails when used. You also didn't include any of the #using directives (OK, without the # in C#). Better would have been to just send us the XAP directly (yes we can get it, but a copy/pasted smidge is a lot less useful)
Downloaded the XAP. It's a paid app, so many tools won't find it.
Examining now. Nothing exotic so far. Possibly P/Invoke only works on signed apps?
The actual message signature that I see:
[PreserveSig]
[DllImport("coredll.dll", CallingConvention = CallingConvention.Winapi, CharSet = CharSet.Ansi, SetLastError = true)]
private static extern int waveOutGetVolume(IntPtr device, out uint volume);
Note that CharSet.Ansi still doesn't seem to exist. That said, this might simply be due to an outdated interop library that shipped with NoDo, and the Mango one does support this? More investigation...
"Possibly P/Invoke only works on signed apps?"
That's the question! If this actually works, it's possible we can get exception for more pInvoke calls and it might be even possible to certify app in marketplace for showing battery status or similar goodies. It won't be possible using that dllImport project, that's more than sure, but if we use only well defined set of safe pInvoke calls, we might get submission exception. It's definitely worth finding it out, what's possible here
My situation:
In my company we have about 30+ handsets currently running Android (standard and custom ROMs from XDA). The handsets include HTC Desire HD, HD2, Desire S and Desire Z. The users cannot be trusted not to brick the phones if they are allowed to download apps and modify them in anyway (not to mention they are business phones so shouldn't have facebook etc on them any way).
I've heard about admin tools which allow control of handsets remotely.
Requirements:
So, if possible, what i would like does something along the lines of...:
1: Blocks further apps from being added to the handset without a password
2: A lock to keep as many of the settings as is originally provided (wallpaper etc)
3: A master admin tool which i can remotely manage all the handsets from (download requested and approved apps, wipe, lock, locate and reset the phones if lost...etc)
What i have done before to stop the users adding further apps is register my email address to Android Market on all the phones, then changed the password using my desktop). While this stops new apps from being downloaded from the market, it does mean i cannot remotely roll out approved apps as they are no longer signed in to the account.
Is there anything out there which does any/all/some of the above?
Is there one tool which can manage all these tasks? Or will it have to be seperate apps like Norton Mobile Security (such as) etc?
Can anyone get their heads around this?
Thanks!
The market lets you download apps to a phone.
Lookout Security does all of the security tasks you want.
Thanks, that would take care of the remote wiping, locating and locking.
Does Android provide any corporate setup for administration of lots of handsets? Surely this is a niche in the market for some devs to jump on if there isn't something like that already.
And i know Android Market allows you to remotely download apps to multiple phones but i want to make it impossible to download through the phone itself. (so i can add apps but the user can't)
Something that performs like MFormation Enterprise Manager but avoiding the $20k price tag! (a tall order i know)
Sonic_Sonar said:
Something that performs like MFormation Enterprise Manager but avoiding the $20k price tag! (a tall order i know)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hello,
Have you found any apps that fit your needs? Do you use them? If no, is your organization still interesting in mobile device management service?
I'm asking because I'm working for http://bloove.com (personal phone management service) and we're going to expand our offer to small and medium companies.
This new service will combine existing contact, sms, phone log and bookmark backup for personal phone with MDM features like centralized app management, location and wipe service etc.
We're looking for early adopters who will have a chance to add their custom requirements to the service and get this service for free for up to six months.
Please let me know if you're interested and want to discuss this further.
Thank you,
Rostislav
[email protected]
Please use the Q&A Forum for questions Thanks
Moving to Q&A
I did something like this ...
I first installed openssh server, plus a script that checks a specific URL for remote access needs (had to do it that way since my carrier blocks connections on all ports).
The server side is a simple php script that you call like this: check.php?deviceid=[ID]. The script checks a DB to see if there is anything new for that device ID and acts accordingly. I implemented three features: Tunnel, Script, Install APK. So, If I want to install an APK to all devices, I just upload it on our webserver, and on the MySQL DB I add devices id = all, action=install, file=/apks/whatever.apk. If, for instance, I want to do something more complex on certain devices, I add: id = all, action=script, file=/apks/whatever.sh. I write the script, then all phones check for updates on this check.php every 5 minutes, if they find a script, they'll download and execute. If it's an APK, they'll download and install. If I insert a line with deviceID=[deviceid], action=tunnel, file=[PORT NUMBER], then the phone will SSH into a remote server and do a reverse port forward, on [PORT NUMBER]. Then I can just SSH into localhost:[PORTNUMBER] on the server, and I'll have a terminal inside the phone to do whatever I need.
This doesn't address the restrictions issue, but it does allow you to control the phones however you want.
Regards,
Almafuerte.
I purchased a Samsung GTi9505 S4 running Android 4.2.2 from Euope recently and can anyone explain to me on how to install this APP?
I have these on my phone (pls see attached pics).
http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/25/samsung-safe-with-knox/
There are NO instructions on installing it. I looked all over on the web and nothing.
Only downloaded the KNOX Whitepaper.
I presume, this only works for North American based phones. But can someone shed some light on this please?
Thanks
It'll probably require some form of MAM (Mobile Application Management) product to be able to manage the applications within this 'sandboxed' environment. Applications will probably need to be specifically written to utilise it so its probably early days yet mate.
Unless I've got it completely wrong of course!
Working for a large organisation that requires this level of security - I requested further information from samsungs website but havn't had a single response yet. I'm assuming its still in development.
zoomee said:
It'll probably require some form of MAM (Mobile Application Management) product to be able to manage the applications within this 'sandboxed' environment. Applications will probably need to be specifically written to utilise it so its probably early days yet mate.
Unless I've got it completely wrong of course!
Working for a large organisation that requires this level of security - I requested further information from samsungs website but havn't had a single response yet. I'm assuming its still in development.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know that the DoD got it approved from DISA.
http://gcn.com/articles/2013/05/29/disa--ios-android-stig.aspx
But Im not working in that environment. Its more like I want to keep my personal data apart from the enterprise environment.So, I want to have my business data under KNOX and personal data on the normal Interface like shown on this video.
Thats all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_jTit_RCdI
And on the box itself, it DOES have the "SAFE" on it. (Samsung For Enterprise)
That vid is a very brief overview mate. Looking at the feature list for knoxx it seems to me to be an enterprise level function. Integration with Active Directory, single sign-on and other MDM products sort of implies that, thats what it will work with and not just for normal end users.
For normal end users - it would just be 'another profile' feature which I don't see much benefit for, as android phones/devices tend to be personal devices. However for the enterprise where we regularly deploy BYOD solutions and corporate devices it seems much more fitting
Sorry bud - probably not what you wanted to hear but until we get further information from them theres not much we can do to utilise it (i'm sure i've seen a knoxx.apk on our devices already)......
If anyone else knows anything else it would be great to hear from them.....
PS - You might want to recommend either Excitors DME product or Good's BYOD one to your IT department
I also work at a large enterprise shop and we are looking at deploying Samsung devices with the Knox functionality. However, I read somewhere that the Knox software was not ready for the worldwide release of the Galaxy S4. It will be available later in the summer on the Galaxy S4 (later for other Samsung devices) on what I assume will be a firmware update. So there is no way to get it on your device right now. Hope this helps.
itsonlyme999 said:
I purchased a Samsung GTi9505 S4 running Android 4.2.2 from Euope recently and can anyone explain to me on how to install this APP?
I have these on my phone (pls see attached pics).
http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/25/samsung-safe-with-knox/
There are NO instructions on installing it. I looked all over on the web and nothing.
Only downloaded the KNOX Whitepaper.
I presume, this only works for North American based phones. But can someone shed some light on this please?
Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
zoomee said:
It'll probably require some form of MAM (Mobile Application Management) product to be able to manage the applications within this 'sandboxed' environment.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
^^^^^
This.
And it offers no value to an individual user even if they managed to get it set up. For basic remote device management Find my Mobile (ex-Samsung Dive) offers what most users are looking for without all the complexity.
Ok, well thats that...
Anyway, even if I did have it installed and working on my phone, then I would be concerned of more memory use and more battery drainage with this KNOX feature enabled.
Think about it, its like running two versions of Android on ONE phone. So this might be draining even more battery.
Thanks guys.
Hello,
I want to figure out the Samsung Accesory Protocol in order to create a "open source" Gear Manager app replacement. This thread is to ask if anyone has been trying to do the same thing as well as try to gather as much information about this protocol as possible. Generic discussion is also accepted, in case anyone has better ideas.
Right now all I know is that this protocol is based on RFCOMM, albeit it can be transported over TCP too. It has a level 1 "framing" which consists basically on
Code:
packed struct Frame {
uint16_be length_of_data;
char data[length_of_data];
}
packed struct FrameWithCRC {
uint16_be length_of_data;
uint16_be crc_of_length;
char data[length_of_data];
uint16_be crc_of_data;
}
I also know that there are various types of packets. "Hello" packets are exchanged early during the connection and contain the product name, etc. Authentication packets are exchanged right after the initial "hello" and contain some varying hashes (crypto warning!). Then the normal data packets are "multiplexed", as in usbmuxd: they have 'session' IDs which described towards which watch program they are talking with. All Hello and authentication packets are sent without CRC, but normal data packets are. The CRC implementation used is crc16, same poly as in the linux kernel.
I suspect that whatever we uncover about this protocol might be useful to e.g. pair Gear with an iPhone, with a PC, things like that.
Note: most of this comes from viewing Bluetooth logs. However it's clear that reverse engineering will be required for the cryptographic parts. In this case I believe it's legally OK to do so in the EU because it's purely for interoperability reasons. I don't want to create a competitor to the Gear2, I just want to talk to it.
Motivation: I bought a Gear2 in order to replace a LiveView that was dying (buttons wearing out, broken wriststrap clips, etc.) . I used it both for notifications as well as map/navigation.
Since I have a Jolla, no programs are available to pair with most smartwatches, but I've been developing my own so far (MetaWatch, LiveView). Thus I decided on a replacement based purely on hardware characteristics and price. Also Tizen seems more open than Android, thus I figured out it would be easier for me to adapt to the watch.
However it seems that I understimated the complexity of the protocol that connects the Gear with the GearManager. So my options in order to make use of this watch are:
Sell Gear2 back and buy something that's easier to hack (e.g. another LiveView ),
Figure out the SAP protocol and write a replacement Gear Manager app (what this thread is about),
Write replacement Tizen applications that don't use SAP. This involves writing new programs for Calls, Messages, Notifications, Alarms, Camera, watchOn, Pulse monitor, etc. i.e. a _lot_ of work if I want to exploit all features of the watch.
But at least one can reuse the existing Tizen settings app, launcher, drivers, etc. (I started porting Qt to the Gear2 with this idea)
Use a different Linux distro on the Gear 2. Such as Sailfish, Mer, etc. This involves all the work of option 3 + possibly driver work.
As of now I've not decided which option is easier for me so I'll keep trying to push them all.
javispedro said:
Hello,
I want to figure out the Samsung Accesory Protocol in order to create a "open source" Gear Manager app replacement. This thread is to ask if anyone has been trying to do the same thing as well as try to gather as much information about this protocol as possible. Generic discussion is also accepted, in case anyone has better ideas.
Right now all I know is that this protocol is based on RFCOMM, albeit it can be transported over TCP too. It has a level 1 "framing" which consists basically on
Code:
packed struct Frame {
uint16_be length_of_data;
char data[length_of_data];
}
packed struct FrameWithCRC {
uint16_be length_of_data;
uint16_be crc_of_length;
char data[length_of_data];
uint16_be crc_of_data;
}
I also know that there are various types of packets. "Hello" packets are exchanged early during the connection and contain the product name, etc. Authentication packets are exchanged right after the initial "hello" and contain some varying hashes (crypto warning!). Then the normal data packets are "multiplexed", as in usbmuxd: they have 'session' IDs which described towards which watch program they are talking with. All Hello and authentication packets are sent without CRC, but normal data packets are. The CRC implementation used is crc16, same poly as in the linux kernel.
I suspect that whatever we uncover about this protocol might be useful to e.g. pair Gear with an iPhone, with a PC, things like that.
Note: most of this comes from viewing Bluetooth logs. However it's clear that reverse engineering will be required for the cryptographic parts. In this case I believe it's legally OK to do so in the EU because it's purely for interoperability reasons. I don't want to create a competitor to the Gear2, I just want to talk to it.
Motivation: I bought a Gear2 in order to replace a LiveView that was dying (buttons wearing out, broken wriststrap clips, etc.) . I used it both for notifications as well as map/navigation.
Since I have a Jolla, no programs are available to pair with most smartwatches, but I've been developing my own so far (MetaWatch, LiveView). Thus I decided on a replacement based purely on hardware characteristics and price. Also Tizen seems more open than Android, thus I figured out it would be easier for me to adapt to the watch.
However it seems that I understimated the complexity of the protocol that connects the Gear with the GearManager. So my options in order to make use of this watch are:
Sell Gear2 back and buy something that's easier to hack (e.g. another LiveView ),
Figure out the SAP protocol and write a replacement Gear Manager app (what this thread is about),
Write replacement Tizen applications that don't use SAP. This involves writing new programs for Calls, Messages, Notifications, Alarms, Camera, watchOn, Pulse monitor, etc. i.e. a _lot_ of work if I want to exploit all features of the watch.
But at least one can reuse the existing Tizen settings app, launcher, drivers, etc. (I started porting Qt to the Gear2 with this idea)
Use a different Linux distro on the Gear 2. Such as Sailfish, Mer, etc. This involves all the work of option 3 + possibly driver work.
As of now I've not decided which option is easier for me so I'll keep trying to push them all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think your thread should probably go in the Dev section for Tizen. Have you made any development? If your want it moved, report your own post with the button in top right labeled report. You can then suggest your thread be moved to the new Tizen Development section. Ok, I wish you all the luck, you seem to be very talented programmer/dev. Thanks for your contributions.
Chris
noellenchris said:
I think your thread should probably go in the Dev section for Tizen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, some mod already moved this thread from Development, where I originally posted it, into Q&A. This is not exactly "Tizen" development (SAP is used in may Samsung devices seemingly).
noellenchris said:
Have you made any development?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, lots of progress. I have been able to write a program that connects to the Gear2 from my PC, succesfully "completes" the setup program and synchronizes the date&time. Things like changing the background color etc. are now trivial. I will soon port it to my Jolla.
I am now looking into how to send notifications to the watch. I've not been able to get Gear Manager to actually send any notifications (to use as "reference"), because goproviders crashes when I try to simulate notifications on my android_x86 VM
If anyone can send me an HCI / Bluetooth packet capture of their Android device while it is sending notifications to the Gear2 I would really appreciate it.
Unfortunately, the main problem here is that Samsung uses some cryptographic authentication as a form of "DRM". I am not exactly sure why.
There was no way for me to discover how the crypto worked so I took the unclean approach and dissasembled their crypto code (libwms.so). That means there's no way I would be able to distribute the code now without risking a lawsuit from Samsung.
Sadly this means that while I can distribute the protocol specifications I obtained, legally distributing "Gear Manager replacements" is probably impossible.
javispedro said:
Well, some mod already moved this thread from Development, where I originally posted it, into Q&A. This is not exactly "Tizen" development (SAP is used in may Samsung devices seemingly).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ya, I was kinda in a Gear 1 mind set, and they have separate threads for Android and Tizen....
Chris
javispedro said:
Unfortunately, the main problem here is that Samsung uses some cryptographic authentication as a form of "DRM". I am not exactly sure why.
There was no way for me to discover how the crypto worked so I took the unclean approach and dissasembled their crypto code (libwms.so). That means there's no way I would be able to distribute the code now without risking a lawsuit from Samsung.
Sadly this means that while I can distribute the protocol specifications I obtained, legally distributing "Gear Manager replacements" is probably impossible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would gladly write a MIT-licensed C library implementing your protocol specifications. That would be correctly following the chinese-wall approach to reverse-engineering, right?
Anyway, AFAIK, being in Europe decompiling for interoperability purposes is allowed -- I know that wikipedia is not to be taken at face value, but: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#European_Union
Antartica said:
I would gladly write a MIT-licensed C library implementing your protocol specifications. That would be correctly following the chinese-wall approach to reverse-engineering, right?
Anyway, AFAIK, being in Europe decompiling for interoperability purposes is allowed -- I know that wikipedia is not to be taken at face value, but: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#European_Union
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, the problem is not the protocol specifications per se, which I'm actually quite confident I'd be able to redistribute (I'm in EU). The problem is the cryptography part, which is basically ripped off from the Samsung lib "libwsm.so" . Unless we can find out what cryptographic method that lib uses, distributing alternate implementations Is a no-go.
javispedro said:
Well, the problem is not the protocol specifications per se, which I'm actually quite confident I'd be able to redistribute (I'm in EU). The problem is the cryptography part, which is basically ripped off from the Samsung lib "libwsm.so" . Unless we can find out what cryptographic method that lib uses, distributing alternate implementations Is a no-go.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you have the time, I don't mind researching the possible crypto used (although I've only studied DES/3DES, AES and Serpent, hope that whatever scheme used is not very different from them).
Some ideas to start from somewhere:
1. As you have used its functions, it is a block cipher? I will assume that it is.
2. What is the key size and the block size?
3. Are there signs that it is using a stack of ciphers? (that is, applying one cipher, then another to the first result and so on)
Antartica said:
If you have the time, I don't mind researching the possible crypto used (although I've only studied DES/3DES, AES and Serpent, hope that whatever scheme used is not very different from them).
Some ideas to start from somewhere:
1. As you have used its functions, it is a block cipher? I will assume that it is.
2. What is the key size and the block size?
3. Are there signs that it is using a stack of ciphers? (that is, applying one cipher, then another to the first result and so on)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hello, I've not forgotten about this, just somewhat busy and been using the MetaWatch lately
1. Yes it is clearly a block cipher, and the block size Is 16bytes.
2. I don't know about the key size, it is obfuscated.
3. Doesn't seem like a stack of ciphers. It looks like some overcomplicated AES. But to be honest AES is the only encryption I know of
By the way I think I will upload my current test "manager" source code to somewhere after removing the crypto specific files . Since the protocol itself has been obtained cleanly. Note I've used Qt (not the GUI parts) so it's useless for creating a library; the code will probably need to be rewritten to do so, but it may be useful as "protocol specs".
javispedro said:
Hello, I've not forgotten about this, just somewhat busy and been using the MetaWatch lately
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No problem. Curiously, I've transitioned from the metawatch to the Gear1 fully (null rom, not pairing with bluetooth to the phone but gear used as a standalone device).
[off-topic]I'm not using my metawatch anymore. I was modifying Nils' oswald firmware to make it prettier and to have some features I wanted (calendar, stopwatch), but it was very inaccurate, supposedly because of missing timer interrupts (the existing LCD drawing routines were too slow). I rewrote the graphics subsystem just to stumble into a known mspgcc bug, and trying to use the new redhat's mspgcc resulted in more problems (memory model, interrupt conventions). In the end I couldn't commit enough time to fix that and my metawatch is now in a drawer[/off-topic]
Returning to the topic:
javispedro said:
1. Yes it is clearly a block cipher, and the block size Is 16bytes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good. We can at least say it isn't DES/3DES nor blowfish (64 bits block size). Regrettably there are a lot of ciphers using 128-bits block size; that I know: AES, Twofish and serpent.
Perusing the wikipedia there are some more of that size in use: Camellia, sometimes RC5 and SEED.
javispedro said:
2. I don't know about the key size, it is obfuscated.
3. Doesn't seem like a stack of ciphers. It looks like some overcomplicated AES. But to be honest AES is the only encryption I know of
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand that to mean that you cannot use that library passing your own key, right?
What a pity! One way to test for these ciphers would have been to just cipher a known string (i.e. all zeroes) with a known key (i.e. also all zeroes) and compare the result with each of the normal ciphers :-/.
javispedro said:
By the way I think I will upload my current test "manager" source code to somewhere after removing the crypto specific files . Since the protocol itself has been obtained cleanly. Note I've used Qt (not the GUI parts) so it's useless for creating a library; the code will probably need to be rewritten to do so, but it may be useful as "protocol specs".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Perfect. I don't need anything more .
Ok, so I've uploaded my SAP protocol implementation: https://git.javispedro.com/cgit/sapd.git/ . It's "phone" side only, ie it can be used to initiate a connection to the watch but not to simulate one. In addition, it's missing two important files: wmscrypt.cc and wmspeer.cc which implement the closed crypto required to "pair" the watch. The most important file is sapprotocol.cc which implements the packing/unpacking of the most important packet types. The license of those files is GPLv3 albeit I'm very happy if you use the information contained on them to build your "Gear Manager" program under whichever license you'd prefer.
For anyone who hasn't been following the above discussion: I've figured out a large part (useful for at least establish contact with the watch and syncing time/date) of the SAP protocol used between the Gear watch and the Gear manager program on the phone. This has been done mostly by studying traces and afterwards talking to the watch using my test implementation above to figure out the remaining and some error codes. The debug messages left by the watch's SAP daemon were also immensely helpful. As long as I understand this is perfectly safe to do, publish and use as I'm in the EU and is basically the same method Samba uses.
Unfortunately, the protocol contains some crypto parts required for the initial sync (subsequent connections require authentication). However, the communication itself is not encrypted in any way, which helped a lot with the process. Because it's impossible for me to figure out whatever authentication method is used, I had to disassemble the library implementing this stuff (libwms.so). This is still OK according to EU law, but I'm no longer to release that information to the public. I'm looking for alternatives or ideas on how to handle this fact.
In the meanwhile, let's talk about the protocol. It's basically a reimplementation of the TCP(/IP) ideas on top of a Bluetooth RFCOMM socket. This means that it's connection oriented and that it can multiplex several active connections (called "sessions") over a single RFCOMM link. Either side of the connection can request opening a connection based on the identifier of the listening endpoint (called a "service"). Strings are used to identify services instead of numeric ports as in TCP. For example, "/system/hostmanager" is a service that listens on the watch side. Once you open a session towards this service (i.e. once you connect to it) you can send the time/date sync commands. In addition to be the above the protocol also seems to implement QoS and reliability (automatic retransmission, ordering, etc.). It's not clear to me why they reimplemented all of this since RFCOMM is a STREAM protocol, and thus reliability is already guaranteed!! So I've not focused much on these (seemingly useless) QoS+reliability parts of the protocol.
Let's start with the link level. There are two important RFCOMM services exposed by the watch: {a49eb41e-cb06-495c-9f4f-aa80a90cdf4a} and {a49eb41e-cb06-495c-9f4f-bb80a90cdf00}. I am going to respectively call those two services "data" and "nudge" from now on. These names, as many of the following ones, are mostly made up by me .
The communication starts with Gear manager trying to open a RFCOMM socket towards the "nudge" service in the watch. This causes the watch to immediately reply back by trying to open a connection to the "data" service _on the phone_ side. So obviously this means that your phone needs to expose the "data" RFCOMM service at least. In addition, the watch will try to open a HFP-AG connection (aka it will try to simulate being a headset) to your phone. Most phones have no problem doing this so no work is required. Of course, if your phone is a PC (as in my case ) then you'll need to fake the HFP profile. I give some examples in my code above (see scripts/test-hfp-ag and hfpag.cc).
Once the RFCOMM socket from the watch to the phone "data" service is opened, the watch will immediately send what I call a "peer description" frame. This includes stuff such as the model of the watch as well as some QoS parameters which I still don't understand. The phone is supposed to reply back to this message with a peer description of its own. See sapprotocol.cc for the packet format.
After the description exchange is done, the watch will send a "authentication request" packet. This is a 65 byte bigint plus a 2 byte "challenge". The response from the phone should contain a similar 65 byte bigint, the 2 byte response, and an additional 32 byte bigint. If correct, the watch will reply with some packet I don't care about. Otherwise the connection will be dropped. It obviously looks like some key exchange. But this is the crypto part that's implemented in libwms.so....
After these two exchanges link is now set up. The first connection that needs to be opened is towards a service that is always guaranteed to be present, called "/System/Reserved/ServiceCapabilityDiscovery". It is used by both sides of the connection to know the list of available services present on the other side. Despite this, you cannot query for all services; instead, you must always know the name of the remote service you're looking for. There's some 16-byte checksum there which I don't know how to calculate, but fortunately the watch seems to ignore it!! I suspect that you're expected to actually persist the database of available services in order to shave a roundtrip when connection is being established. But this is not necessary for normal function. This service is implemented in capabilityagent.cc, capabilitypeer.cc . This part was actually one of the most complex ones because of the many concepts. I suggest reading the SDK documentation to understand all the terms ("service", "profile", "role", etc.).
If everything's gone well, now the watch will try to open a connection to a service in your phone called "/system/hostmanager". Once you get to this message things start to get fun, because the protocol used for this service is JSON! It's implementation resides in hostmanageragent.cc, hostmanagerconn.cc . For example, Gear Manager sends the following JSON message once you accept the EULA: {"btMac":"XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX", "msgId":"mgr_setupwizard_eula_finished_req", "isOld":1}. At this point, the watch hides the setup screen and goes straight to the menu.
Well, this concludes my high-level overview of the SAP protocol. Hope it is useful for at least someone!
Things to do:
Personally I'm looking for some traces of the notification service. Ie the one that forwards Android notifications towards the watch. For some reason it doesn't work on my phone, so I can't get traces. I suspect it's going to be a simple protocol so a few traces will be OK. It's the only stuff I'm missing in order to be able to actually use the Gear as a proper smartwatch with my Jolla.
We still need to tackle the problem of the cryptographic parts. Several options: either "wrap" the stock libwms.so file, try to RE it the "proper way", .... I'm not sure of the feasibility of any of these.
Many other services.
javispedro said:
After the description exchange is done, the watch will send a "authentication request" packet. This is a 65 byte bigint plus a 2 byte "challenge". The response from the phone should contain a similar 65 byte bigint, the 2 byte response, and an additional 32 byte bigint. If correct, the watch will reply with some packet I don't care about. Otherwise the connection will be dropped. It obviously looks like some key exchange. But this is the crypto part that's implemented in libwms.so....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
About that 65-byte bigint... that is a 520-bit key. The usual length of ECDSA keys is exactly 520-bits, so we may have something there: it is possible that they are using ECDSA signing (just like in bitcoin, so there are a lot of implementations of that code).
Not forgotten about this!
Just an status update:
I'm still in the process of defining the API of the C library using javispedro's sources as template.
It's tougher than I originally supposed because the C++ code has a lot of forward-declarations of classes, which is very difficult to map into C. To counter that I have to move elements between structures and I'm not so comfortable with the codebase yet.
And then there is still the hard work of translating the Qt signals/slots to plain' old callbacks... and implementing the bluetooth part using bluez API... and... well, I hope that is all.
Anyway, patience .
I've now had access to a Samsung S2 and thus I have been able to obtain more traces. The latest Git now contains code to connect to the notification manager service, thus allowing to send notifications from the phone to the watch.
That was the last missing part to be able to use the Gear 2 as a 'daily' smartwatch with my Jolla, so I've now also ported the code to run under Sailfish. In fact I'm using this setup at the moment. My first comment is "wow the vibrator IS weak".
You can find a log of sapd's (ie my code) startup qDebug() messages; they may be useful (if you can't yet get your code to run)
I suspect that there may still be some important battery issues because the watch keeps printing error messages about SAP services it can't find on the phone (and instead of sleeping, it starts busy polling for them.... :/ ). It does not seem to happen while the watch is out of the charging cradle, so it may not be important, but not sure yet.
As for the encryption, I'm not sure how to proceed. I could describe the code to you, but that would be risky, because I don't understand what it does. Thus the only way (for me) to describe it would be to pass on the mathematical formulas/pseudocode ... Apart from that, we also have the problem of the keys...
Antartica said:
The usual length of ECDSA keys is exactly 520-bits, so we may have something there: it is possible that they are using ECDSA signing
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They do use ECDH indeed, and they link with OpenSSL and import the ECDH functions. However it's not clear if they use ECDSA; while the crypto algorithm DOES resemble DSA, I cannot fully identify it.
Congratulations for managing to make it work with the Jolla .
I have finally found a suitable "flattened" class hierarchy as to be able to map your code into C; see the attachs. Basically, I have to move the functionality of SAPConnectionRequest, SAPSocket, CapabilityPeer and SAPConnection into SAPPeer, and then it is suitable for my needs.
javispedro said:
As for the encryption, I'm not sure how to proceed. I could describe the code to you, but that would be risky, because I don't understand what it does. Thus the only way (for me) to describe it would be to pass on the mathematical formulas/pseudocode ... Apart from that, we also have the problem of the keys...
They do use ECDH indeed, and they link with OpenSSL and import the ECDH functions. However it's not clear if they use ECDSA; while the crypto algorithm DOES resemble DSA, I cannot fully identify it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you manage to describe it using mathematical formulas as in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipt...ture_Algorithm#Signature_generation_algorithm
it would be perfect, but I reckon that to be able write that you need intimate knowledge of the code and don't know if you have time for that :angel:
And identifying the hash function used would be a problem in itself...
One idea: how about a ltrace so we have the calls to the openssl library? That may uncover new hints.
Anyway, I have a lot of work before me until I need that, so don't fret over it.
Hi there! Any chance that the Gear can (really) work with an iPhone?
gidi said:
Hi there! Any chance that the Gear can (really) work with an iPhone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agreed. Needs iPhone support please.
Antartica said:
Congratulations for managing to make it work with the Jolla .
I have finally found a suitable "flattened" class hierarchy as to be able to map your code into C; see the attachs. Basically, I have to move the functionality of SAPConnectionRequest, SAPSocket, CapabilityPeer and SAPConnection into SAPPeer, and then it is suitable for my needs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You may want to look at the official Samsung SDK docs to match their class hierarchy. I tried to match my hierarchy to theirs, but this happened very late in the development process, so there is some weirdness.
Antartica said:
One idea: how about a ltrace so we have the calls to the openssl library? That may uncover new hints.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I more or less know what it is doing with OpenSSL, but that's because I looked at the dissassembly. They use OpenSSL for key derivation (ECDH), but the actual cryptographic algorithm is their own. This 'block cipher' is the part they have tried to obfuscate. Not much, but still enough to require more time than what I have available It is basically a set of arithmetical operations with some tables hardcoded in the libwsm.so binary, so no external calls to any library. The hardcoded tables are probably derivated from their private key, which is most definitely not on the binary. In fact I suspect this is basically AES with some changes to make it hard to extract the actual key used, so that's where I've centered my efforts.
Technically it should not even be copyrightable, so maybe I could just redistribute my C reimplementation of the algorithm, but as with any other DRM who knows these days... and that still leaves the problem of the tables/"private key".
Digiguest said:
agreed. Needs iPhone support please.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well you are welcome to implement one such iPhone program yourself. Will be happy to resolve all the protocol questions you have.
(But please stop with the nagging).
Wasn't nagging at all. Just agreeing with him. I am no programmer so I have to rely on others for answers. Sorry if you thought otherwise.
Looking for to see more work on it though. Keep it up.
Hi there! Nice work on getting Gear2 to work with Jolla.
I'd love to get Gear1 to work with WP8.1. Do you have the code for Jolla
on github/bitbucket so I could give it a peek? Thanks in advance.
Duobix said:
Hi there! Nice work on getting Gear2 to work with Jolla.
I'd love to get Gear1 to work with WP8.1. Do you have the code for Jolla
on github/bitbucket so I could give it a peek? Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
javispedro had the sources in gitorius, but they are not there anymore (surely related to gitlab buying gitorius).
I attach a tarball with javispedro sources as of 19 October 2014.
Note that it lacks the files implementing the crypto, so just porting it is not enough to be able to communicate to the gear. OTOH, I know that there are some differences in the protocol between the Android Gear1 and the Tizen Gear2 (if the gear1 has been updated to Tizen, it uses the same protocol as gear2). Specifically, to be able to communicate with both watches, the gear manager package has both gear manager 1.7.x and gear manager 2.x. javispedro's code implements the gear 2 protocol.
Personally, I have my port on hold (I have problems with bluetooth in my phone, so there is no point in porting sapd right now as I would not be able to use it).