What would be a short, human name (so that support dude can spell it) for a concept where user action is non-blocking and state is synchronized in the background?
In my case I mark some clients as having really crap network and thus force them into such mode of operation.
Normal mode of operation is on-line, synchronous, blocking, live, soft real-time and ignores cached data.
Modern "offline html5" application do this, ajax does it, unix AIO does it, but what is it called?
Candidates so far
asynchronous (spelling)
non-blocking
offline (unclear)
batched (incorrect)
network-challenged (😼)
cached (Tomasz)
delayed
...
...
...
Im not a tech-poet, but my first thought was also 'asynchronous'.
But, it's not for the innocent, so my second thought would revolve
around the stem "cache".
So, I'd try:
locally cached
offline cached
or, counter-naming: "synchronized" (which we, techies, quickly understand
as "blocking", whereas the simple, honest John has no idea why sunchronization
should block).
So "synchronized" or "local synchronized".
Unfortunately, it's all a matter of taste. More important is the one-sentence
explanation, which the support guy/gal should give the customer...
EDIT: "local synchronized" was again the kind of name we give, which normal
people cannot understand. It could be, e.g. "synchronized remote".
You may wonder, what the opposite should be? I.e. the synchronous mode for fast
networks? Well, I'd call it "online mode" or some other name that suggests the
people that they should be "online" to use it ;)
"No signature required delivery"? (Oh..., that's a little bit long.)
Related
this maybe will be off topic, but I am preparing for an exam in real time. And I have been browsing the book and Internet for an answer for a problem.
Basically I wonder if by adding additional test code if it may change the real time behavior for an embedded system, and or also if it will introduce new errors.
Anyone who might know the answer for this, or refer me to some reading material for it?
Your question is too general.. So I guess the default answer would be it depends.. But considering the possibilities as an exercise of logic and thought, yes it surely can!
There are many schemes available to guarantee the 'real-timeness' of an embedded system. For example, one can have a pre-emptive timer based ISR to service the real-time task.. In such a case, your test code could possibly not affect the 'real-timeness'.. But if the testing takes too long, and the context switches are not pre-emptive, you could get into trouble..
But again it depends on what you're testing and how you're testing. Your test code can possible mess with the timers, interrupts or the memory of system. The possibilities to mess up stuff if you're not careful are endless..
Having an OS underneath will prevent some errors, but again depending on how it works, you may be saved from bad 'test code'..
Yes, when you add code (test, diagnostic, statistic) it may change the real time behavior. It depends on the design, the implementation and the CPU power if it will actually change the behavior. You also have more lines of code and the probability for errors may increase. But I wouldn't say, "it will introduce errors", since it can introduce errors.
Yes it can. See How can adding data to a segment in flash memory screw up a program's timing? for an example of how even adding non-executable code can adjust timing enough to screw up a system.
Yea, changing your code base could totally change its timing. Consider if you dumped some debug output to a serial port, it takes time to call that function, format the data, and if the function is synchronous, then for it to wait for data to go out. This kinda stuff definitely changes system timing behavior.
as opposed to writing your own library.
We're working on a project here that will be a self-dividing server pool, if one section grows too heavy, the manager would divide it and put it on another machine as a separate process. It would also alert all connected clients this affects to connect to the new server.
I am curious about using ZeroMQ for inter-server and inter-process communication. My partner would prefer to roll his own. I'm looking to the community to answer this question.
I'm a fairly novice programmer myself and just learned about messaging queues. As i've googled and read, it seems everyone is using messaging queues for all sorts of things, but why? What makes them better than writing your own library? Why are they so common and why are there so many?
what makes them better than writing your own library?
When rolling out the first version of your app, probably nothing: your needs are well defined and you will develop a messaging system that will fit your needs: small feature list, small source code etc.
Those tools are very useful after the first release, when you actually have to extend your application and add more features to it.
Let me give you a few use cases:
your app will have to talk to a big endian machine (sparc/powerpc) from a little endian machine (x86, intel/amd). Your messaging system had some endian ordering assumption: go and fix it
you designed your app so it is not a binary protocol/messaging system and now it is very slow because you spend most of your time parsing it (the number of messages increased and parsing became a bottleneck): adapt it so it can transport binary/fixed encoding
at the beginning you had 3 machine inside a lan, no noticeable delays everything gets to every machine. your client/boss/pointy-haired-devil-boss shows up and tell you that you will install the app on WAN you do not manage - and then you start having connection failures, bad latency etc. you need to store message and retry sending them later on: go back to the code and plug this stuff in (and enjoy)
messages sent need to have replies, but not all of them: you send some parameters in and expect a spreadsheet as a result instead of just sending and acknowledges, go back to code and plug this stuff in (and enjoy.)
some messages are critical and there reception/sending needs proper backup/persistence/. Why you ask ? auditing purposes
And many other use cases that I forgot ...
You can implement it yourself, but do not spend much time doing so: you will probably replace it later on anyway.
That's very much like asking: why use a database when you can write your own?
The answer is that using a tool that has been around for a while and is well understood in lots of different use cases, pays off more and more over time and as your requirements evolve. This is especially true if more than one developer is involved in a project. Do you want to become support staff for a queueing system if you change to a new project? Using a tool prevents that from happening. It becomes someone else's problem.
Case in point: persistence. Writing a tool to store one message on disk is easy. Writing a persistor that scales and performs well and stably, in many different use cases, and is manageable, and cheap to support, is hard. If you want to see someone complaining about how hard it is then look at this: http://www.lshift.net/blog/2009/12/07/rabbitmq-at-the-skills-matter-functional-programming-exchange
Anyway, I hope this helps. By all means write your own tool. Many many people have done so. Whatever solves your problem, is good.
I'm considering using ZeroMQ myself - hence I stumbled across this question.
Let's assume for the moment that you have the ability to implement a message queuing system that meets all of your requirements. Why would you adopt ZeroMQ (or other third party library) over the roll-your-own approach? Simple - cost.
Let's assume for a moment that ZeroMQ already meets all of your requirements. All that needs to be done is integrating it into your build, read some doco and then start using it. That's got to be far less effort than rolling your own. Plus, the maintenance burden has been shifted to another company. Since ZeroMQ is free, it's like you've just grown your development team to include (part of) the ZeroMQ team.
If you ran a Software Development business, then I think that you would balance the cost/risk of using third party libraries against rolling your own, and in this case, using ZeroMQ would win hands down.
Perhaps you (or rather, your partner) suffer, as so many developers do, from the "Not Invented Here" syndrome? If so, adjust your attitude and reassess the use of ZeroMQ. Personally, I much prefer the benefits of Proudly Found Elsewhere attitude. I'm hoping I can proud of finding ZeroMQ... time will tell.
EDIT: I came across this video from the ZeroMQ developers that talks about why you should use ZeroMQ.
what makes them better than writing your own library?
Message queuing systems are transactional, which is conceptually easy to use as a client, but hard to get right as an implementor, especially considering persistent queues. You might think you can get away with writing a quick messaging library, but without transactions and persistence, you'd not have the full benefits of a messaging system.
Persistence in this context means that the messaging middleware keeps unhandled messages in permanent storage (on disk) in case the server goes down; after a restart, the messages can be handled and no retransmit is necessary (the sender does not even know there was a problem). Transactional means that you can read messages from different queues and write messages to different queues in a transactional manner, meaning that either all reads and writes succeed or (if one or more fail) none succeeds. This is not really much different from the transactionality known from interfacing with databases and has the same benefits (it simplifies error handling; without transactions, you would have to assure that each individual read/write succeeds, and if one or more fail, you have to roll back those changes that did succeed).
Before writing your own library, read the 0MQ Guide here: http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:all
Chances are that you will either decide to install RabbitMQ, or else you will make your library on top of ZeroMQ since they have already done all the hard parts.
If you have a little time give it a try and roll out your own implemntation! The learnings of this excercise will convince you about the wisdom of using an already tested library.
When things go badly awry in embedded systems I tend to write an error to a special log file in flash and then reboot (there's not much option if, say, you run out of memory).
I realize even that can go wrong, so I try to minimize it (by not allocating any memory during the final write, and boosting the write processes priority).
But that relies on someone retrieving the log file. Now I was considering sending a message over the intertubes to report the error before rebooting.
On second thoughts, of course, it would be better to send that message after reboot, but it did get me to thinking...
What sort of things ought I be doing if I discover an irrecoverable error, and how can I do them as safely as possible in a system which is in an unstable state?
One strategy is to use a section of RAM that is not initialised by during power-on/reboot. That can be used to store data that survives a reboot, and then when your app restarts, early on in the code it can check that memory and see if it contains any useful data. If it does, then write it to a log, or send it over a comms channel.
How to reserve a section of RAM that is non-initialised is platform-dependent, and depends if you're running a full-blown OS (Linux) that manages RAM initialisation or not. If you're on a small system where RAM initialisation is done by the C start-up code, then your compiler probably has a way to put data (a file-scope variable) in a different section (besides the usual e.g. .bss) which is not initialised by the C start-up code.
If the data is not initialised, then it will probably contain random data at power-up. To determine whether it contains random data or valid data, use a hash, e.g. CRC-32, to determine its validity. If your processor has a way to tell you if you're in a reboot vs a power-up reset, then you should also use that to decide that the data is invalid after a power-up.
There is no single answer to this. I would start with a Watchdog timer. This reboots the system if things go terribly awry.
Something else to consider - what is not in a log file is also important. If you have routine updates from various tasks/actions logged then you can learn from what is missing.
Finally, in the case that things go bad and you are still running: enter a critical section, turn off as much of the OS a possible, shut down peripherals, log as much state info as possible, then reboot!
The one thing you want to make sure you do is to not corrupt data that might legitimately be in flash, so if you try to write information in a crash situation you need to do so carefully and with the knowledge that the system might be an a very bad state so anything you do needs to be done in a way that doesn't make things worse.
Generally, when I detect a crash state I try to spit information out a serial port. A UART driver that's accessible from a crashed state is usually pretty simple - it just needs to be a simple polling driver that writes characters to the transmit data register when the busy bit is clear - a crash handler generally doesn't need to play nice with multitasking, so polling is fine. And it generally doesn't need to worry about incoming data; or at least not needing to worry about incoming data in a fashion that can't be handled by polling. In fact, a crash handler generally cannot expect that multitasking and interrupt handling will be working since the system is screwed up.
I try to have it write the register file, a portion of the stack and any important OS data structures (the current task control block or something) that might be available and interesting. A watchdog timer usually is responsible for resetting the system in this state, so the crash handler might not have the opportunity to write everything, so dump the most important stuff first (do not have the crash handler kick the watchdog - you don't want to have some bug mistakenly prevent the watchdog from resetting the system).
Of course this is most useful in a development setup, since when the device is released it might not have anything attached to the serial port. If you want to be able to capture these kinds of crash dumps after release, then they need to get written somewhere appropriate (like maybe a reserved section of flash - just make sure it's not part of the normal data/file system area unless you're sure it can't corrupt that data). Of course you'd need to have something examine that area at boot so it can be detected and sent somewhere useful or there's no point, unless you might get units back post-mortem and can hook them up to a debugging setup that can look at the data.
I think the most well known example of proper exception handling is a missile self-destruction. The exception was caused by arithmetic overflow in software. There obviously was a lot of tracing/recording media involved because the root cause is known. It was discovered debugged.
So, every embedded design must include 2 features: recording media like your log file and graceful halt, like disabling all timers/interrupts, shutting all ports and sitting in infinite loop or in case of a missile - self-destruction.
Writing messages to flash before reboot in embedded systems is often a bad idea. As you point out, no one is going to read the message, and if the problem is not transient you wear out the flash.
When the system is in an inconsistent state, there is almost nothing you can do reliably and the best thing to do is to restart the system as quickly as possible so that you can recover from transient failures (timing, special external events, etc.). In some systems I have written a trap handler that uses some reserved memory so that it can, set up the serial port and then emit a stack dump and register contents without requiring extra stack space or clobbering registers.
A simple restart with a dump like that is reasonable because if the problem is transient the restart will resolve the problem and you want to keep it simple and let the device continue. If the problem is not transient you are not going to make forward progress anyway and someone can come along and connect a diagnostic device.
Very interesting paper on failures and recovery: WHY DO COMPUTERS STOP AND WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT?
For a very simple system, do you have a pin you can wiggle? For example, when you start up configure it to have high output, if things go way south (i.e. watchdog reset pending) then set it to low.
Have you ever considered using a garbage collector ?
And I'm not joking.
If you do dynamic allocation at runtime in embedded systems,
why not reserve a mark buffer and mark and sweep when the excrement hits the rotating air blower.
You've probably got the malloc (or whatever) implementation's source, right ?
If you don't have library sources for your embedded system forget I ever suggested it, but tell the rest of us what equipment it is in so we can avoid ever using it. Yikes (how do you debug without library sources?).
If you're system is already dead.... who cares how long it takes. It obviously isn't critical that it be running this instant;
if it was you couldn't risk "dieing" like this anyway ?
I've a question about a good way to protect a bit my cocoa app from piracy. I know that this is impossible!
So, in my app I've an isRegistered() method that runs every time the user launch the app.
This is called from the applicationDidFinishLaunching: App delegate. So if this method returns true, the app continues to execute the code, otherwise an Alert appears saying that the app is not registered and there are xx day to buy a license.
This is a good way? Because, I have no experience in this.
Thank you in advance for your help!
SOLVED
First of all, thanks to everybody! I think the same thing: any copy protection can stop the piracy. I'm trying only to solve this little bug, even if I know that someone will crack my app again.
However, it's true - the best thing is to improve the app and not waste the time to try make the piracy protection more efficient.
The solution you describe requires almost no expertise whatsoever to crack. It is trivial to change your isRegistered() function to always return true. Thus, the effort required to circumvent your protection is a tiny fraction of the effort you would have to spend implementinging all the infrastructure to support users purchasing registration codes.
In other words, you're not getting a good return on investment. There is some debate over whether the return on investment implementing piracy protection (rather than improving your product) is ever good enough (because you pit yourself against people who have nothing better to do than prove they're cleverer than you).
One good way to redress the balance of return on investment is to use pre-existing code such as AquaticPrime. That way, at least you won't have spent so much time chasing rainbows :)
I am not in shrink-wrapped software business but my friend is. And his observation after 10 years of selling his product was that it makes no sense to create too sophisticated protection because always some one will hack it. You are alone and world is infinite. It is better to invest time/money in improving your software than working on copy protection.
Also keep in mind that around 10% of will never steal and other 10% will always try. Just make sure that those 80% is able to buy your product without any other mayor obstacle. Than you could ignore those nasty 10%. Actually it is a quote from Joel Spolsky IHMO.
So your solution seems to be completely OK from technical point of view and just stay with it.
it's almost never worth implementing your own anti-piracy system, because you'll almost always spend a lot of effort on something which can then be broken very easily. Rely on a shared implementation - in this case a framework like AquaticPrime (lots of people on the macsb mailing list recommend that one) - and you're effectively relying on the framework being good enough to protect your own app as well as all the others.
The code signing framework on Leopard and later allows you to sign your code such that if it's ever tampered with, it will refuse to run - see the documentation of the kill option in the manpage.
This is a good question. Having read the answers, I think what BitDrink was really getting at was this: we know that an isRegistered() function is dead simple to hack. With the understanding that any protection system eventually will be hacked, what are some strategies for writing a function that's harder to hack than an isRegistered function that returns a boolean?
Fundamentally, any copy protection system will eventually have something that looks like this:
if (program is registered)
let the program continue
else
nagging message
end
Any hacker with a copy of GDB will eventually find that first line and write a tiny little patch to strip it out. Most copy protection systems focus on security through obscurity, i.e. making that line hard to find. You can also make this system more robust by signing the binary and checking the signature, but you'll just add another hoop for the hackers to jump through. They'll eventually find your public key and change it to their own public key so they can replace your signature. However, I believe this will significantly slow them down. Leopard offers a code signing utility, but I don't know if it can be used to prevent incorrectly signed applications from running at all.
There's no perfect solution to this problem, but there are two main things to remember:
your registration system will be broken. There is absolutely no way around this.
your reigstration system is a barrier between the user and your program. You should optimize for the (hopefully majority of) legitimate users and make this as easy to do as possible.
One of our next projects is supposed to be a MS Windows based game (written in C#, with a winform GUI and an integrated DirectX display-control) for a customer who wants to give away prizes to the best players. This project is meant to run for a couple of years, with championships, ladders, tournaments, player vs. player-action and so on.
One of the main concerns here is cheating, as a player would benefit dramatically if he was able to - for instance - let a custom made bot play the game for him (more in terms of strategy-decisions than in terms of playing many hours).
So my question is: what technical possibilites do we have to detect bot activity? We can of course track the number of hours played, analyze strategies to detect anomalies and so on, but as far as this question is concerned, I would be more interested in knowing details like
how to detect if another application makes periodical screenshots?
how to detect if another application scans our process memory?
what are good ways to determine whether user input (mouse movement, keyboard input) is human-generated and not automated?
is it possible to detect if another application requests informations about controls in our application (position of controls etc)?
what other ways exist in which a cheater could gather informations about the current game state, feed those to a bot and send the determined actions back to the client?
Your feedback is highly appreciated!
I wrote d2botnet, a .net diablo 2 automation engine a while back, and something you can add to your list of things to watch out for are malformed /invalid/forged packets. I assume this game will communicate over TCP. Packet sniffing and forging are usually the first way games (online anyways) are automated. I know blizzard would detect malformed packets, somehting i tried to stay away from doing in d2botnet.
So make sure you detect invalid packets. Encrypt them. Hash them. do somethign to make sure they are valid. If you think about it, if someone can know exactly what every packet means that is sent back and forth they dont even need to run the client software, which then makes any process based detection a moot point. So you can also add in some sort of packet based challenge response that your cleint must know how to respond to.
Just an idea what if the 'cheater' runs your software in a virtual machine (like vmware) and makes screenshots of that window? I doubt you can defend against that.
You obviously can't defend against the 'analog gap', e.g. the cheater's system makes external screenshots with a high quality camera - I guess it's only a theoretical issue.
Maybe you should investigate chess sites. There is a lot of money in chess, they don't like bots either - maybe they have come up with a solution already.
The best protection against automation is to not have tasks that require grinding.
That being said, the best way to detect automation is to actively engage the user and require periodic CAPTCHA-like tests (except without the image and so forth). I'd recommend utilizing a database of several thousand simple one-off questions that get posed to the user every so often.
However, based on your question, I'd say your best bet is to not implement the anti-automation features in C#. You stand very little chance of detecting well-written hacks/bots from within managed code, especially when all the hacker has to do is simply go into ring0 to avoid detection via any standard method. I'd recommend a Warden-like approach (download-able module that you can update whenever you feel like) combined with a Kernel-Mode Driver that hooks all of the windows API functions and watches them for "inappropriate" calls. Note, however, that you're going to run into a lot of false positives, so you need to not base your banning system on your automated data. Always have a human look over it before banning.
A common method of listening to keyboard and mouse input in an application is setting a windows hook using SetWindowsHookEx.
Vendors usually try to protect their software during installation so that hacker won't automate and crack/find a serial for their application.
Google the term: "Key Loggers"...
Here's an article that describes the problem and methods to prevent it.
I have no deeper understanding on how PunkBuster and such softwar works, but this is the way I'd go:
Iintercept calls to the API functions that handle the memory stuff like ReadProcessMemory, WriteProcessMemory and so on.
You'd detect if your process is involved in the call, log it, and trampoline the call back to the original function.
This should work for the screenshot taking too, but you might want to intercept the BitBlt function.
Here's a basic tutorial concerning the function interception:
Intercepting System API Calls
You should look into what goes into Punkbuster, Valve Anti-Cheat, and some other anti-cheat stuff for some pointers.
Edit: What I mean is, look into how they do it; how they detect that stuff.
I don't know the technical details, but Intenet Chess Club's BlitzIn program seems to have integrated program switching detection. That's of course for detecting people running a chess engine on the side and not directly applicable to your case, but you may be able to extrapolate the apporach to something like if process X takes more than Z% CPU time the next Y cycles, it's probably a bot running.
That in addition to a "you must not run anything else while playing the game to be eligible for prizes" as part of the contest rules might work.
Also, a draconian "we might decide in any time for any reason that you have been using a bot and disqualify you" rule also helps with the heuristic approach above (used in prized ICC chess tournaments).
All these questions are easily solved by the rule 1 above:
* how to detect if another application makes periodical screenshots?
* how to detect if another application scans our process memory?
* what are good ways to determine whether user input (mouse movement, keyboard input) is human-generated and not automated?
* is it possible to detect if another application requests informations about controls in our application (position of controls etc)?
I think a good way to make harder the problem to the crackers is to have the only authoritative copies of the game state in your servers, only sending to and receiving updates from the clients, that way you can embed in the communication protocol itself client validation (that it hasn't been cracked and thus the detection rules are still in place). That, and actively monitoring for new weird behavior found might get you close to where you want to be.