Related
It is new, still in private beta but it looks too good to be true:
http://www.skyfire.com/
For the first time ever, you can watch any web video, listen to any web music, stay connected on any social network and browse whatever you want. Anything you can browse from your PC, you can now browse from your mobile phone.
We’re talking about full-featured PC versions of your favorite web sites. Skyfire gives you speedy page loads, full audio, video, images, dynamic Flash content, advanced Ajax, Java and more – just like your PC.
If you live in US, you can sign up for the private beta:
http://www.skyfire.com/sign-up
gogol said:
It is new, still in private beta but it looks too good to be true:
http://www.skyfire.com/
For the first time ever, you can watch any web video, listen to any web music, stay connected on any social network and browse whatever you want. Anything you can browse from your PC, you can now browse from your mobile phone.
We’re talking about full-featured PC versions of your favorite web sites. Skyfire gives you speedy page loads, full audio, video, images, dynamic Flash content, advanced Ajax, Java and more – just like your PC.
If you live in US, you can sign up for the private beta:
http://www.skyfire.com/sign-up
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sounds too good to be true? Subscription based when full version or just charged to cell access and unavailable to WiFi??
they say it's free, atleast for the beta on there site...fingers crossed, looks awesome
Daaaamn..... I am living at Finland... any way to get that cab file for testing?
It looks quite nice...
We shall see, once they open the beta.
PeeHoo said:
Daaaamn..... I am living at Finland... any way to get that cab file for testing?
It looks quite nice...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quoted from the website:
Sign Up Today
* If you have a Windows Mobile phone, sign up today and we will notify you when the Skyfire private beta starts.
* If you do not have a Windows Mobile phone or you live outside the United States, please sign up so we can promptly notify you when Skyfire is available for your type of mobile phone.
And if you try to sign up for the non-US notification - you can't as the US mobile number field is mandatory... unless your US mobile number (like mine) happens to be 1111 111 111
Sky
Looks great!! To bad MS didnt come out with it.
unwired4 said:
And if you try to sign up for the non-US notification - you can't as the US mobile number field is mandatory... unless your US mobile number (like mine) happens to be 1111 111 111
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why, Unwired, your number is very similar to mine!!
I have a feeling with them saying 'Mobile Phone' that this is going to be a Java based WAP app but we shall see.
I'll say one thing, if the browser is as slow as their website then its a loser to start with!!
( I just worry about sites promising something to you later that want loads of details, my SPAMer list sense (similar to Spider sense but not as refined) starts to burn...)
It says that the first application is for PocketPC/Smartphone with keyboards. They aslo blatantly show a Kaiser variant on the site (front camera version).
I promptly signed up for the beta, maybe this can be as good as Safari for the iPhone.
Anyway, I'll keep you posted if I get any response.
here it is in action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mWUoxiLZFc
looks super. also surprised at how superfast it was then the guy showed he was on a cellphone data connection (evdo). while the demo was going on I was assuming that he was on a fast wifi connection. Def. super duper cool!
Had to be pre-cached pages. But impressive none-the-less.
Yeah, I'm concerned about privacy. I still hear not to bank with Opera Mini, so I can't imagine how one could trust a company they've never heard of. Sounds too iffy. But, for all other browsing needs, this seems like the best match for mobile phones. What if there were a way to make your home PC cache the sites for you, so you would know/trust the origin of the cache?
nice but check this:
From their Privacy Policy:
"Once you have subscribed to and begin to use the Browser, we will collect information about your use of the Browser on your Device (“Browser Usage Information”). Browser Usage Information includes such information as which websites and programs you access or download on your Device, how long you visit such websites and use such programs, your activities (such as products purchased or advertisements viewed) on such websites, which specific areas of a website or webpage you use and for how long, websites you bookmark, search terms you use, referring/exit pages, browser and platform types, the geographic location in which your Device is being used and information you provide on third party websites. All of your Browser Usage Information is stored by Skyfire under an automatically generated, random identification number (“ID Number”) that will not be associated with or linked to your Personal Information. Please be aware, though, that your Browser Usage Information, when viewed in the aggregate, may reveal your identity even if it is not associated with or linked to your Personal Information."
In other words, when you use our browser, we track everything you do, and assign an "anonymous" ID number to that information. And oh, by the way, the "anonymous" ID number may be linked to your identity.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do U really want this? Im pissed that sec.cams are on every corner. And after a time when they find out what are U looking for on inet (ie. pda4x, ppcwarez, torrentz....) u have police knocking on Ur doors(or email box full of add. and scam emails). Nice, but not safe.
Not recomended
phsnake said:
nice but check this:
Do U really want this? Im pissed that sec.cams are on every corner. And after a time when they find out what are U looking for on inet (ie. pda4x, ppcwarez, torrentz....) u have police knocking on Ur doors(or email box full of add. and scam emails). Nice, but not safe.
Not recomended
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Told you my SPAMer sense was burning!!! Well spotted....
Totally agreed that we should all be scared. AT&T is also talking about full-time monitoring of all users on their network. Lovely for us Tilt (branded) users. Not only a serious privacy concern, but how slow will the network have to run to allow constant monitoring? I love my country, but I fear my government.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Franklin
While that privacy notice does concern me a bit, I'm not a business user, and I don't make purchases or give any sort of confidential information out via web on my phone.
so just to clairify... the beta has not been realsed yet? even though that video was realeased? and yeah the privacy stuff sucks but i dont do much viewing that i would care if any one saw so ill be ok with it. as long as it dosnt slow the network down to much
GUI seemed nice and snappy on the sprint.
I've signed up.
I used a spare hotmail address that I had knocking about.
My US number is 12345678900 and my name is John Smith, apparently.
This is a continuation of this thread: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=567870, which covered cracking the original "basic" copy protection of Marketplace.
---
I have now cracked the "advanced" copy protection used by Marketplace. As you may know, this is a "better" protection than the original "CAB copy protection" Marketplace offered. This "advanced" protection uses license keys that are verified when you run the application, and given out and controlled by Microsoft.
Several developers are annoyed that Microsoft does not allow us to use our own licensing schemes, and are forced to use "no protection" (the original CAB copy protection) or use Microsoft's scheme which is essentially a single point of failure for all Marketplace protected apps.
This new "advanced" protection was released today by Microsoft, and as far as I know no app available already uses it at the time of this writing.
So I got the code snippets you are supposed to put in your app and it was simply jawdroppingly WTF. While it was not exactly easy to beat, it took me less than two hours to devise a "generic" hack, without modifying any files on the device. (Well hey, at least it's better than the 5 minutes it took for the "basic" protection, right?)
A "generic" hack? Yes, by this I mean that this single hack (actually, running an EXE in the background) will completely bypass the entire code snippet provided by Microsoft that is supposed to check and validate your license code, for all Marketplace apps that use this "advanced" protection.
I will not publish the code that performs this hack, so don't ask. My goal is not to crack Marketplace apps, my goal is to get MS off their ass and allow us to use our own licensing systems, like the good little resellers they're supposed to be. I will tell you that it has to do with runtime patching the crypto API, but that's it. All in all, I don't think it will take long for the warez people to duplicate this hack.
---
Some further reasoning about anti-piracy, solutions, etc can be found in post 13 on page 2.
if there are no apps that use it yet, how do u know your hack works?
Because the Marketplace portal provides code ("code snippet") you have to compile in your EXE, and that takes care of the whole licensing thing.
So you look at that source, spot the weak points, devise a hack. Then compile a program using said "code snippet" and try the hack on it.
If developers simply copy/paste the snippet they are given by the Marketplace portal, this hack will work.
Chainfire said:
This is a continuation of this thread: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=567870, which covered cracking the original "basic" copy protection of Marketplace.
---
I have now cracked the "advanced" copy protection used by Marketplace. As you may know, this is a "better" protection than the original "CAB copy protection" Marketplace offered. This "advanced" protection uses license keys that are verified when you run the application, and given out and controlled by Microsoft.
Several developers are annoyed that Microsoft does not allow us to use our own licensing schemes, and are forced to use "no protection" (the original CAB copy protection) or use Microsoft's scheme which is essentially a single point of failure for all Marketplace protected apps.
This new "advanced" protection was released today by Microsoft, and as far as I know no app available already uses it at the time of this writing.
So I got the code snippets you are supposed to put in your app and it was simply jawdroppingly WTF. While it was not exactly easy to beat, it took me less than two hours to devise a "generic" hack, without modifying any files on the device. (Well hey, at least it's better than the 5 minutes it took for the "basic" protection, right?)
A "generic" hack? Yes, by this I mean that this single hack (actually, running an EXE in the background) will completely bypass the entire code snippet provided by Microsoft that is supposed to check and validate your license code, for all Marketplace apps that use this "advanced" protection.
I will not publish the code that performs this hack, so don't ask. My goal is not to crack Marketplace apps, my goal is to get MS off their ass and allow us to use our own licensing systems, like the good little resellers they're supposed to be. I will tell you that it has to do with runtime patching the crypto API, but that's it. All in all, I don't think it will take long for the warez people to duplicate this hack.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
amen
hallelujah
hit me now
YEAH
have given the issue some press : http://www.1800pocketpc.com/2009/11/13/marketplace-advanced-copy-protection-cracked-in-less-than-2-hours.html
anti-piracy protection is intended to stop ordinary users from transferring cabs between devices and it is successful at that. there is no protection that will stop apps from being pirated, certainly not for handheld devices. the new advanced protection is adequate and any further techniques are redundant and a waste of time, because no matter how 'strong' they are, they WILL be cracked.
Slightly if not totally off-topic: A mainstream consumer's view
mnet said:
anti-piracy protection is intended to stop ordinary users from transferring cabs between devices and it is successful at that. there is no protection that will stop apps from being pirated, certainly not for handheld devices. the new advanced protection is adequate and any further techniques are redundant and a waste of time, because no matter how 'strong' they are, they WILL be cracked.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with you and your premise. Now a quick story.
I consider myself a mainstream consumer... but I have been a member of XDA for, what, i think 4 years, using 2 WM phones, first the T-Mobile MDA, then the Wing (HTC Herald), and I am about to switch to Android with the HTC Hero. I am reasonably savvy about tech, just not a coder. But I've done all the hard SPL, flashing ROMS, using beta software, and supporting developers here with pretty significant donations. I am also a User Experience / Usability designer for web as a profession. THAT'S MY BACKGROUND.
To date, my experience buying WM apps has been universally AWFUL. Whether it was, just recently, Resco Picture Viewer from PocketGear, or WM Defrag from Wizcode, or PocketPlayer from Conduits. I am more than happy to buy excellent software that works, and has a decent UI. But in each case, the process of buying the app and getting it onto my phone has been absurd, and frustrating beyond belief. Each provider makes all sorts of assumptions -- often wrong -- including "you must be downloading this from a PC, so we will download for you an executable that runs on a desktop PC then installs via active sync onto your device."
Whatever the percentage is, doesn't matter: A lot of people, like me, download all my cab files, and purchase apps, on my Mac... and either email myself the .cab file or .zip files, or place my microSD card from my phone into a USB reader. Thus, what a frikkin headache to end up getting PocketPlayer on my phone... but because i didn't download it from a Windows PC, I was screwed.
This stuff is archaic. This past week it has taken 5 days to get Resco Picture Viewer on my phone after purchasing from PocketGear.com . They have a completely retarded transactional process, a terrible UI, broken software in terms of user recognition and resetting username and password, and a completely phone-UNFRIENDLY site, with most sub-level menus not even accessible from browsers like Opera Mobile, Netfront, Iris ... They are dumbass pull downs using god knows what -- flash or javascript, whatever. But fact is: a simple navigation process to access the products on the phone itself can't even be achieved by these clowns -- yet everyone is in overdrive now trying to get their version of "THE" WindowsMobile app store online, while Microsoft stumbles.
The fact is: I would LIKE to see a uniform transaction process which is designed professionally, and supports great usability design, and once I buy the app, quit making me go through absurd backflips just to get access to the cab file. Stop requiring me to use a Windows PC. And stop all the "special OUR way" authentication processes. Because if they were so good, there wouldn't be the kind of problems I have described. I'll even grant anyone who wants to -- to say "well you're just a dumb**** user who doesn't understand their particular process"... I'll grant you that, and my answer would be:
If you plan to sell a lot of apps -- ie, make money via VOLUME transactions vs pricey apps -- a la iphone -- then it makes a hell of a lot of sense to make a uniform system of delivery if you're buying it through an app store, and for god's sake, cut the crap and figure it out. It's not so hard to send an authentication code via email or text message. But it's exactly WRONG to be having 1000 developers using 1000 special "our way" authentication processes, because the odds of 1000 app developers having a great, simple, effective UI and safe authentication system that prevents priacy of their app is pretty low, based on the experiences I have had to date with MAINSTREAM products for WM.
That's my view. But I see a whole lot of clumsiness from the Windows Mobile side of the fence pertaining to this whole new way of monetizing apps. There's a reason apple succeeds in that department -- even with their bloated catalog and draconian approval processes. They understand how to deliver products to consumers -- vs repelling them from a dumbass process, no matter how good that process may be in theory.
quicksite said:
I agree with you and your premise. Now a quick story.
I consider myself a mainstream consumer... but I have been a member of XDA for, what, i think 4 years, using 2 WM phones, first the T-Mobile MDA, then the Wing (HTC Herald), and I am about to switch to Android with the HTC Hero. I am reasonably savvy about tech, just not a coder. But I've done all the hard SPL, flashing ROMS, using beta software, and supporting developers here with pretty significant donations. I am also a User Experience / Usability designer for web as a profession. THAT'S MY BACKGROUND.
To date, my experience buying WM apps has been universally AWFUL. Whether it was, just recently, Resco Picture Viewer from PocketGear, or WM Defrag from Wizcode, or PocketPlayer from Conduits. I am more than happy to buy excellent software that works, and has a decent UI. But in each case, the process of buying the app and getting it onto my phone has been absurd, and frustrating beyond belief. Each provider makes all sorts of assumptions -- often wrong -- including "you must be downloading this from a PC, so we will download for you an executable that runs on a desktop PC then installs via active sync onto your device."
Whatever the percentage is, doesn't matter: A lot of people, like me, download all my cab files, and purchase apps, on my Mac... and either email myself the .cab file or .zip files, or place my microSD card from my phone into a USB reader. Thus, what a frikkin headache to end up getting PocketPlayer on my phone... but because i didn't download it from a Windows PC, I was screwed.
This stuff is archaic. This past week it has taken 5 days to get Resco Picture Viewer on my phone after purchasing from PocketGear.com . They have a completely retarded transactional process, a terrible UI, broken software in terms of user recognition and resetting username and password, and a completely phone-UNFRIENDLY site, with most sub-level menus not even accessible from browsers like Opera Mobile, Netfront, Iris ... They are dumbass pull downs using god knows what -- flash or javascript, whatever. But fact is: a simple navigation process to access the products on the phone itself can't even be achieved by these clowns -- yet everyone is in overdrive now trying to get their version of "THE" WindowsMobile app store online, while Microsoft stumbles.
The fact is: I would LIKE to see a uniform transaction process which is designed professionally, and supports great usability design, and once I buy the app, quit making me go through absurd backflips just to get access to the cab file. Stop requiring me to use a Windows PC. And stop all the "special OUR way" authentication processes. Because if they were so good, there wouldn't be the kind of problems I have described. I'll even grant anyone who wants to -- to say "well you're just a dumb**** user who doesn't understand their particular process"... I'll grant you that, and my answer would be:
If you plan to sell a lot of apps -- ie, make money via VOLUME transactions vs pricey apps -- a la iphone -- then it makes a hell of a lot of sense to make a uniform system of delivery if you're buying it through an app store, and for god's sake, cut the crap and figure it out. It's not so hard to send an authentication code via email or text message. But it's exactly WRONG to be having 1000 developers using 1000 special "our way" authentication processes, because the odds of 1000 app developers having a great, simple, effective UI and safe authentication system that prevents priacy of their app is pretty low, based on the experiences I have had to date with MAINSTREAM products for WM.
That's my view. But I see a whole lot of clumsiness from the Windows Mobile side of the fence pertaining to this whole new way of monetizing apps. There's a reason apple succeeds in that department -- even with their bloated catalog and draconian approval processes. They understand how to deliver products to consumers -- vs repelling them from a dumbass process, no matter how good that process may be in theory.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Couldn't agree more!
I'll add one more reason I wrap my head in ductape every time I download/install an app.
Think it's bad with every developer having their own authentication method? How about when each developer has a DIFFERENT authentication scheme for every app they make?
I like a rant - thanks for doing it for me as I agree with you 100%.
The top of my annoyance list (which you did include) are sites selling mobile software which are NOT mobile browser friendly, WTF is that all about?
Big Up, I still don't think anyone else would have done it in two hours.
Hey you warned them didn't you.
Haha Chainfire is there anything you cant do?
More in the Dutch press:
http://tweakers.net/nieuws/63713/nederlander-kraakt-nieuwe-beveiliging-windows-marketplace.html
While I do appreciate the "rant", I think you're missing my point - or perhaps I just don't agree. (Edit: that is in response to this post http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=4936479&postcount=7)
When I say "use our own licensing schemes", I do not mean codes sent back and forth through websites, screen you have to type stuff in etc. This is exactly not needed because Marketplace is also the delivery mechanism. In other words, the license code can be installed by Marketplace directly without the user ever seeing or hearing about it.
This is partly how the new system works, actually. However, if Microsoft supported license codes you give them things would be more secure (though granted, for a large part by obscurity).
Some authors will not care and simply not use it all, for example with the cheap apps it may not be worth their while. Others may wish to track license key usage, so that if suddenly 10.000 users start using the same key instead of the 1 who bought it, that key can be disabled, etc. Some may want the app to call home, some will not. Imagine that developers that do employ such anti-piracy measures will write their own verification / communication code, this beats the single point of failure we currently have. The crackers are back to having to crack each app independently and even then have a much lower chance of success.
Marketplace is the perfect opportunity to implement such a system that does provide some piracy security for the authors while for once it does not unnecessarily annoy the user.
To make the obligatory bad car analogy that fails in many ways, take you car keys. Everyone thinks it's normal to have a car key, so people can't just take your car. Of course, in line with some of the arguments against anti-piracy measures, car keys aren't really that useful, as there's always a brick - the universal key, and a car thief that really wants your car will get it. (You also lock the doors on your house, right?)
Now, the current situation is pretty much that everyone has the same car key. How useful is a car key in that situation? They way I see it (and I'm sure I'm not alone in that), is more like the actual car key situation. Some car keys are laser etched, or have something RFID-like in them and a receive in the car, or simply use different shapes, etc. That's a lot more useful than everyone having the same car key.
Sure, no matter what you do, eventually things will get cracked and it is a cat and mouse game. One of the reasons this is easily doable is because of the open nature and the very few restrictions of Windows Mobile. This is a good thing. No developer in their right mind would want to get to a restrictive system like is the case on the iPhone or other mobile OS's. That is not the point. That doesn't mean anti-piracy measures are useless though, far from it. The longer you can keep a release from being warez'd, the less you lose.
There are two arguments I hear coming back in various places by various people:
(1) If the normal users can't just copy it, then that is enough (even MS says this)
(2) Piracy works as advertising, you get more eventual sales, etc. etc
Both of these, are from my own experience, completely untrue. The thing is if one person cracks it, it usually spreads on those warez sites pretty quickly.
The big thing here is, the average user is apparently tech-savvy enough to search the warez sites first before buying, and that is just how it is:
We have played the game with that one warez site, monitoring sales when (apparent) cracks were listed and when they weren't (they do remove releases on request). This made a 30-50% difference in sales (with the number being highest during the weekends, and lowest during weekdays). For me that is enough data to know that both (1) and (2) are complete nonsense in the case of mobile apps. No matter all the pretty reasons and perhaps seemingly logical reasons you may come up with for (1) and (2), the numbers don't lie.
So, how would you like to get a 30-50% paycut? It's not like us developers are getting rich here, you know. Can we be blamed for trying to prevent this?
Now, here we have the chance to implement a system that is completely transparent for the user and can be made reasonably safe (and updatable), an obvious win-win situation for everyone involved except the warez people. Why exactly shouldn't we be aiming for this?
What is also painfully apparent here, as Microsoft themselves claim reason (1), that they have no idea what they are talking about.
i am no programmer so excuse my ignorance but doesnt everything eventually get cracked. Is there any mobile platform which hasnt a non cracked market place or sites where you can download paid apps for free?
Well done Chainfire
Hello Chainfire,
I am the webmaster of the Tamoggemon Content network, and just covered you:
http://tamsppc.tamoggemon.com/2009/11/13/advanced-marketplace-drm-broken/
http://tamswms.tamoggemon.com/2009/11/13/advanced-marketplace-drm-broken/
Furthermore, an email went out to MSFT asking for a statement. but this is not the reason why I registered here (!!!) - I am instead here to vent a bit being a Symbian dev myself.
While I fully understand your frustration, I think that allowing every developer to run his own DRM is not gonna do the store good. The reason is that the store was made to make purchasing apps simple - and by allowing everyone to run his own DRM I dont see much of a venue to do this anymore.
Whenever some kind of backend gets involved, there is a single point of failure - the only trhing I can think off now would be a very complet system based on servers.
Or, of course, platform security like on S60. But trust me - we wont want that!
Thanks! However, if you read my other post carefully you'd see it wouldn't make any difference to the ease of using the store (it wouldn't make any difference for the user at all), just to a part of the backend. And of course, each DRM system has a single point of failure, but the difference is in my case there is a point of failure per app, while in the current case it's a single point of failure for everything. There is no perfect solution, but there are better solutions than the current one.
I've been contacted by a handful of big WM devs by now who are of somewhat the same opinion.
microsoft.... when it comes to security, they are clueless as usual.
only apple is worse.
I find they windows-7 VPN and "encryption" funny , is there anybody that would trust it ? - even if it was not for the backdoors ?
Just wondering, is anyone else having problems accessing the windows marketplace from the phone? I was able to download a couple of apps yesterday after I installed a custom ROM (TPC Pro Series V3.2), but today I get a message saying there is an update, it installs the update but then I get the following message:
"Windows Marketplace for Mobile cannot connect right now. Try again later."
Is this because of the custom ROM and the latest update to the marketplace, or is this something other people are experiencing?
Remember the days when purchased mp3s were DRM protected and some companies like Sony even put rootkits on music CDs? Did that stop piracy?
Hopefully Microsoft will not repeat these mistakes... There is no need for any further 'protection' for marketplace apps. If a developer isn't satisfied with this mechanism then he/she doesn't have to publish their apps on the marketplace. There's no point in having a centralized app store if every developer uses his/her own licensing scheme.
Hello.,
does anybody know if there is a program for the android similar to teh phone creeper for wm6.5
the phone creeper allow easthdropping on phones, phone calls phone locating and so many other features as posted here
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=527423
so ......
does this mean, nobody knows or there is no such software?
Im wondering the same thing
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA App
What does "easthdropping" mean?
By the way the MIUI Phone.apk is able to geo-localize the calls, even if it works in China only (AFAIK)
I'm the developer for the phone creeper and will be launching the android version very soon, however it will be very different. The problem with and hurdle for creating the same functionality on android devices is that (at least that i'm aware) there is no way to completely hide an SMS message from phones. You can instantly read it and delete it as with windows mobile, however there will still be an sms arrived alert in the status bar.
To get around this hurdle i've created a website with a database and webpage front end that will allow for all communications to happen with a combo of SQL and Android Cloud to Device Messaging (C2DM). This will allow for a small footprint quick silent communications. However this also means I need to support a website and database.
This basically adds a large level of complexity and creates various pluses and minuses for everybody. The program will still be free as it has always been, however some of the features and those who want to have viewing and controlling capabilities through the web will be charged a slim fee.
The program will still be completely functional and useful without paying a dime but hopefully enough people will want the extra goodies to pay for the web hosting.
As I said it's mostly complete now and hopefully I'll have a release published here shortly and allow for free web viewing trial also.
chetstriker said:
I'm the developer for the phone creeper and will be launching the android version very soon, however it will be very different. The problem with and hurdle for creating the same functionality on android devices is that (at least that i'm aware) there is no way to completely hide an SMS message from phones. You can instantly read it and delete it as with windows mobile, however there will still be an sms arrived alert in the status bar.
To get around this hurdle i've created a website with a database and webpage front end that will allow for all communications to happen with a combo of SQL and Android Cloud to Device Messaging (C2DM). This will allow for a small footprint quick silent communications. However this also means I need to support a website and database.
This basically adds a large level of complexity and creates various pluses and minuses for everybody. The program will still be free as it has always been, however some of the features and those who want to have viewing and controlling capabilities through the web will be charged a slim fee.
The program will still be completely functional and useful without paying a dime but hopefully enough people will want the extra goodies to pay for the web hosting.
As I said it's mostly complete now and hopefully I'll have a release published here shortly and allow for free web viewing trial also.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this is great news, let me know if you need testers
also can we have links to the site,
i'm a web designer and php programmer, i can give you feedback if you need
smartechno said:
this is great news, let me know if you need testers
also can we have links to the site,
i'm a web designer and php programmer, i can give you feedback if you need
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That would be wonderful, I usually only create desktop and mobile applications. I don't have that great of an artistic eye and have rarely created any web sites. Currently I'm also using PHP for the website and will probably have to switch from godaddy hosting since they seem VERY slow at hosting any web pages containing scripts.
Maybe you can help me figure out why the logo seems to get cut off in IE6 (looks fine in other browsers.) it appears that displaying the bars are cutting it off since if I disable them it looks fine.
The link is xxxxxx Mod Edit: Link removed.
Whow, talking about privacy and espionage here
In general, Software like this is greatly coded, and requires alot of skill.
But on the other hand, if you use this App to watch / control somebody elses phone, is really awkward... I would be scared to know that a program like this exists and could be activated silently on my phone...
Just my 2 cents, but respect to the one who is able to program such a tool!
how about totalcare?
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=835603
badai said:
how about totalcare?
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=835603
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
totalcare is a nice project, but the main differences are:
OverVi3w can be controlled via a webpage or sms.
Overvi3w has many more features
Overvi3w is actually stealthy, unless something is different about totalcare since last time i'd seen it. The message may be instantly deleted, however when you look at the sms history it would still show that it arrived even if you couldn't open it. although you still could see the command and from who is sent.
Overvi3w allows the phone to be controlled from ANY other phone or from the web console. It still uses a password for protection during sms control and to use the web interface it requires the imei (gsm phones) or meid (cdma phones) for extra security.
Anyway, I should be accepting alpha users later this week.
wow it's already have a name. OverVi3w. can't wait. total care just doesn't work on both my phone (gingerbread and froyo).
your phone creeper really great. works even after flashing new rom.
you misspell register on your website.
badai said:
you misspell register on your website.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks.. how embarrassing for me.
I've created a new thread on XDA for anyone interested in becoming an Alpha tester.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=14113648#post14113648
The predecessor to phone creeper on windows mobile 5 or 6 years ago
Hi you asked foraan phond creeper program for win mobile 3.5 look for phone creeper or espionage suite .cab and if that cant be found look up phone leash for android and if nothing there is appealing look up blooover.cab its a java thing and works well with winmobile and theres newer **** for other platforms.
chetstriker said:
I'm the developer for the phone creeper and will be launching the android version very soon, however it will be very different. The problem with and hurdle for creating the same functionality on android devices is that (at least that i'm aware) there is no way to completely hide an SMS message from phones. You can instantly read it and delete it as with windows mobile, however there will still be an sms arrived alert in the status bar.
To get around this hurdle i've created a website with a database and webpage front end that will allow for all communications to happen with a combo of SQL and Android Cloud to Device Messaging (C2DM). This will allow for a small footprint quick silent communications. However this also means I need to support a website and database.
This basically adds a large level of complexity and creates various pluses and minuses for everybody. The program will still be free as it has always been, however some of the features and those who want to have viewing and controlling capabilities through the web will be charged a slim fee.
The program will still be completely functional and useful without paying a dime but hopefully enough people will want the extra goodies to pay for the web hosting.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
chetstriker said:
As I said it's mostly complete now and hopefully I'll have a release published here shortly and allow for free web viewing trial also.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i would be happy to donate and help out where do i go to donate and how long do you think until the program is ready.
where do i go to donate
MOD ACTION:
Thread closed since it violates Rule 16 just like the linked thread in the OP which has also been closed.
@cindyloulou
Do you realise that this is a 12 year old thread with the last post in 2014? And please do not create multiple posts within a short time, instead edit your previous post if you need to add some info.
Unfortunly I have recently lost one of my beloved gadgets, and after that situation I came up with this idea. I presents you an anti-thef system. I don't have the technical skills to develop it, neither I have the time, that's why I decided to post it here and if you consider this idea viable, may some of you want to involve in this tiny project with me
The idea:
Motivations: Most people don’t think about recovering their gadgets until they lose them. There are plenty of applications in Google Play dedicated to this purpose, however they are useless in most of the circumstances, specially if we attend to the fact that except in some exceptions, these apps don’t survive a factory reset
Idea: I propose to develop a system with wide acceptance among developers which in a transparent way for users allows them to gather information if their gadgets have been lost. This system would activate after downloading an application using this technology. This application would gather information about the gadget (permanent data such serial number of IMEI and volatile data such email address or phone number) and send it to a database usable only by the gadget's owner
Design: The system would have two parts:
An API - This API must be extremely simple and it could be integrated in all the applications in Google Play without efforts. The more wide accepted it is, the more effective the system will be. That’s why in my opinion this should be developed by a community like this in order to achieve a great acceptance quickly
The code will run the first time the application is executed. In that moment it gathers all the required information and it is sent to the database
A Web Service - The web service basically is a data base with two user interfaces - One interface designed to receive the data sent by the application - and another interface designed to return the information of a given gadget identified by its serial number. I have been wondering how to verified the ownership of an user, and I there are several ways, however it's an open discussion subject
Advantages of the system:
It’s totally transparent for the user
It’s a reset-proofing system, because as soon as the “new user” downloads a “marked” application, the database will receive helpful information in order to get the gadget returned to the real owner
It has more chances than the traditional applications to have the “thief” triggering events which runs the code
With a minimum cost we can offer something new to the market
Let’s see an example
A nice guy with a new gadget (let’s say a new phone), he downloads some applications, most of them marked with this system. In this situation the database collect the information of this new phone and indexes it using its serial number.
Few days later this nice guy forget his phone in a plane and the person who finds it forces a factory reset. As soon as the phone downloads one application the database stores the new information. Five minutes later our nice guy connects to the web site and discovers the name and the phone number of the person using his phone. They get in touch and the phone is returned to our nice guy
pls take a look @ ceberusapp.com . hope this is what u looking for.
Sent from my GT-I8150 using xda app-developers app
just add an app to /system which want the user to insert a code every 10 minutes when screen is on. after 3 wrong tries device will make wuiuiiiui and run away, hum?
Example: Chuck Norris have a new Phone. He Never Loose it. End.
Example 2: Justin Bieber have a new Phone. He loose it. Haters Destroy it and don't download applications. End.
Example 3: Jader132245324239 has got Xperia arc S and loose it. Jader13254 Find it and reflash Software and remove SIM. Jader1322u45324u239 will not Find it. End.
What Do You Think About?? If The User Wipe the Device & Reflash Software + Removed SIM, there would be no way to remember the Owner..
Cerberus is nice, in fact I use Cerberus on my mobile phone, however it has the problem I mentioned, it depends on the user to install it, and most users won't install anything because they don't even think in losing its mobile.
The system I proposed doesn't depend on the user, it automatically gathers the permanent information (for instance the serial number) and sends it to a database.
The main advantage of this system is that the thief, even after wiping the telephone, will probably download an application and then database will have information about this person.
What do you think?
Not a development thread - moved to General.
Hey there,
I saw a couple of posts on the Internet regarding this new Tasker plugin. I was wondering how it really works, but couldn't find any detailed explanation on how exactly this works.
I'm a bit sceptical installing a Tasker plugin which can be controlled by any browser. Sure you have to know the shortened URL and you can define a password, but I don't see myself handing over control of my phone to a Tasker login lying around in the cloud somewhere.
Any insights?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.joaomgcd.autoremote.lite
This is the lite version if anyone is interested.
How to from pocketables
http://www.pocketables.com/tag/autoremote
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
AutoRemote developer here
Hi.
I'm AutoRemote's developer.
What exactly are your concerns over AutoRemote's security?
The way it works is, like you said, you control your phone from your own personal URL. You give that that URL to other people or keep it to yourself. The probability of someone finding that URL by chance is extremely low, and even if they do, they would have to guess which commands you configured on your phone.
Feel free to ask any questions and I'll try to answer them.
Hi,
thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. And I have to admit, I was a bit vague in my first post.
How does the communication between my desktop browser and my phone work? Let's say I defined a message and send it from my browser at work to my phone, which is on the mobile network. How does this work? Will the message be send from the PC to the phone? I don't know how that would work, as the ip I got from my ISP is behind a firewall and there is no way to directly reach my phone. This leaves two possibilities:
1. the phone has a constant connection to the server, like an ssh tunnel (http://autoremotejoaomgcd.appspot.com/?key), or
2. the phone itself checks for new messages on the server in regular intervals (again, http://autoremotejoaomgcd.appspot.com/?key)
1. battery will drain a lot, judging from my experience with ssh or VPN. Phone won't go into deep sleep.
2. Messages will be stored on the server.
I guess 2 is more likely, but then again, I could be talking out of my a**
My main problem with it though: Everything done via http://autoremotejoaomgcd.appspot.com/ is a black box for me. You could save all messages, including passwords and messages and this is a big problem for me. Don't get me wrong, but why should I trust you with this data when you could do all kinds of nasty things with the devices. Let's assume I made a message to remotely wipe my phone, you could do same, couldn't you?
I'm not saying you do these things, but I don't know you
I guess my guestion is, any way to host the middleman goo.gl/12345 and http://autoremotejoaomgcd.appspot.com/ myself?
If I'm wrong about these things, please feel free to correct me and thanks again for taking the time
Greetings
Thanks for the friendly message.
About the first part, the way it works is, the autoremotejoaomgcd.appspot.com page sends a message to Google which in turn sends a push notification to your phone.
That doesn't drain any more battery than it would otherwise, the connection to Google's servers to receive push notifications is always open anyway.
This is the same way you receive new email alerts or instant messages on other apps.
About the second part, yes, it's true. If I wanted, I could keep all your messages and resend them. I certainly DON'T do that, but why would you trust me?
Well, what I always say is, use AutoRemote for fun and non-dangerous stuff if you don't feel like trusting me. If you feel I'm not a bad guy (I already have lots of positive reviews on Google Play that show that I haven't done anything wrong), that by all means create a remote-wipe profile in Tasker.
Hope this helps!
Hey man,
Thanks for the explanation and sorry for the delay, but the last couple of days were pretty busy. Anyway, I still have a follow up question
I'm curious about the Google push notification feature you mentioned and I'd like to know how that works. I hope there is some sort of mechanism to prevent people from sending notifications to my device without my consent. If you could point me in the right direction in terms of documentation I would be grateful (well, I already am for your response )
I think I will give it a try and use incoming email for wiping device. Being able to disable my xmpp account on the tablet when phone leaves home would be a great feature. So, thanks again for your effort and your answer.
Have a nice day.
Hillbicks
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 2
Hi,
I know this is an old thread but wanted to jump in since the developer seems to be on this thread.
From a security perspective, a couple of suggestions:
Make both the Google Short URL and the URL that the Google Short URL directs to HTTPS. This would keep people on the local network from sniffing both your URL query string and password. Certificates appear to already be in place, so it's as simple as adding a character, assuming AutoRemote would allow it.
Use the password as a hash to encrypt the data being passed over the Google Servers. Process would look something like the below, and would ensure total security of the data being transmitted.
Web form uses client-side JS to encrpyt any data based on password
Encrypted data is BASE64 encoded to plain text
This string is sent through the notification engine of Google
When received, the phone uncodes the BASE64, then decrpyts using the password
Thanks,
Ben
Fmstrat said:
Hi,
I know this is an old thread but wanted to jump in since the developer seems to be on this thread.
From a security perspective, a couple of suggestions:
Make both the Google Short URL and the URL that the Google Short URL directs to HTTPS. This would keep people on the local network from sniffing both your URL query string and password. Certificates appear to already be in place, so it's as simple as adding a character, assuming AutoRemote would allow it.
Use the password as a hash to encrypt the data being passed over the Google Servers. Process would look something like the below, and would ensure total security of the data being transmitted.
Web form uses client-side JS to encrpyt any data based on password
Encrypted data is BASE64 encoded to plain text
This string is sent through the notification engine of Google
When received, the phone uncodes the BASE64, then decrpyts using the password
Thanks,
Ben
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm with Ben here. I just installed Autoremote for testing and tried adding my linux box as a registered device. That implies entering a valid username and password for the linux box, and I'm guessing that both username and password are sent on the clear when sending a message from Autoremote to the linux box. This is a major security risk, and perhaps Ben's solution could be easily implemented...
I think Autoremote is a great idea with a great execution so far, just lacking the security component for our peace of mind!
Ivan.
There's lots of stuff you can do with autoremote that requires no security. I used it, like the pocketables guy, to spread alarms between two android devices. Lowers the risk of one device's alarm failing to go off, and I'm hard to wake up, so the more alarms the better. All I passed through autoremote was the time and the command the client needed to know what to do with the time. Security for such a transmission just isn't necessary.
Not that I am opposed to you guys getting your security, but I'd imagine it'd be a pricier functionality, and what exists now is for applications where security would be unnecessary.
fortunz said:
There's lots of stuff you can do with autoremote that requires no security. I used it, like the pocketables guy, to spread alarms between two android devices. Lowers the risk of one device's alarm failing to go off, and I'm hard to wake up, so the more alarms the better. All I passed through autoremote was the time and the command the client needed to know what to do with the time. Security for such a transmission just isn't necessary.
Not that I am opposed to you guys getting your security, but I'd imagine it'd be a pricier functionality, and what exists now is for applications where security would be unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure if anyone is still monitoring this, but I still think it would be really awesome to be able to do this without the need to loop through someone else's server.
Does anyone know of something that is out there that would allow one to do that?
--Ironhead65
ironhead65 said:
Not sure if anyone is still monitoring this, but I still think it would be really awesome to be able to do this without the need to loop through someone else's server.
Does anyone know of something that is out there that would allow one to do that?
--Ironhead65
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi, as long as your sending device and the reciever (that may be another phone or a PC) are in the same network, there is a possibility to send the messages directly via WiFi. Also, messages can be sent by using Bluetooth.
So, as long, as your connected to the same network (what you usually are as long as you´re at home), or your devices are in the same room there is no need for external servers
Greetings!
@joaomgcd
Any news on that matter?
C0qRouge said:
@joaomgcd
Any news on that matter?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What part exactly do you mean?
thanks for taking the time! there are many interesting ideas in this thread.
* HTTPS <-- seems to be already in place
* Encryption of communication
* no private server, only direct connection or google as a relay
and to add: it would be nice to have a bit of documentation "behind the scene" to understand whats going on how the devices are communicating with each other.
C0qRouge said:
thanks for taking the time! there are many interesting ideas in this thread.
* HTTPS <-- seems to be already in place
* Encryption of communication
* no private server, only direct connection or google as a relay
and to add: it would be nice to have a bit of documentation "behind the scene" to understand whats going on how the devices are communicating with each other.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 to direct communication, as in LAN communication ONLY
Two devices both running tasker/autoremote, able to communicate with one another on the same network, without being routed outside the network.....ever
Whether thats feasible, ....i dont know
I also like the encryption bit