Question is simple: how to send exactly one byte to some server.
I am trying to create a program for Windows in C which should be able to send exactly one byte to a given IP address. So, I simply need a function like this:
void sendByte(unsigned int ip, unsigned char byte){/**/}
I searched on MSDN and I found some functions which provide such a service (of course, program should be enabled in firewall etc.., I did that already), but these functions also write a header. For example, when I try to send one byte, it sends actually 1025 bytes. The first 1024 bytes are some junk data I don't want to be sent (like headers Content-Length:... etc). Is there a way to send exactly one byte?
What I have also found is some libraries and stand-alone executable files which provide something like that. But, I don't want to include anything except standard C libraries and also <windows.h>, and I don't want to use 3rd stand-alone executables.
I have searched on StackOverflow and MSDN, but I found nothing helpful. Is there an easy way to do it using only standard libraries and windows.h only? Not other libraries and plugins and programs please.
Related
There are several questions dealing with some aspects of this problem, but neither seems to answer it wholly. The whole problem can be summarized as follows:
You have an already compiled executable (obviously expecting the use of this technique).
You want to add an arbitrarily sized binary data to it (not necessarily by itself which would be another nasty problem to deal with).
You want the already compiled executable to be able to access this added binary data.
My particular use-case would be an interpreter, where I would like to make the user able to produce a single file executable out of an interpreter binary and the code he supplies (the interpreter binary being the executable which would have to be patched with the user supplied code as binary data).
A similar case are self-extracting archives, where a program (the archiving utility, such as zip) is capable to construct such an executable which contains a pre-built decompressor (the already compiled executable), and user-supplied data (the contents of the archive). Obviously no compiler or linker is involved in this process (Thanks, Mathias for the note and pointing out 7-zip).
Using existing questions a particular path of solution shows along the following examples:
appending data to an exe - This deals with the aspect of adding arbitrary data to arbitrary exes, without covering how to actually access it (basically simple append usually works, also true with Unix's ELF format).
Finding current executable's path without /proc/self/exe - In companion with the above, this would allow getting a file name to use for opening the exe, to access the added data. There are many more of these kind of questions, however neither focuses especially on the problem of getting a path suitable for the purpose of actually getting the binary opened as a file (which goal alone might (?) be easier to accomplish - truly you don't even need the path, just the binary opened for reading).
There also may be other, probably more elegant ways around this problem than padding the binary and opening the file for reading it in. For example could the executable be made so that it becomes rather trivial to patch it later with the arbitrarily sized data so it appears "within" it being in some proper data segment? (I couldn't really find anything on this, for fixed size data it should be trivial though unless the executable has some hash)
Can this be done reasonably well with as little deviation from standard C as possible? Even more or less cross-platform? (At least from maintenance standpoint) Note that it would be preferred if the program performing the adding of the binary data didn't rely on compiler tools to do it (which the user might not have), but solutions necessiting those might also be useful.
Note the already compiled executable criteria (the first point in the above list), which requires a completely different approach than solutions described in questions like C/C++ with GCC: Statically add resource files to executable/library or SDL embed image inside program executable , which ask for embedding data compile-time.
Additional notes:
The problems with the obvious approach outlined above and suggested in some comments, that to just append to the binary and use that, are as follows:
Opening the currently running program's binary doesn't seem something trivial (opening the executable for reading is, but not finding the path to supply to the file open call, at least not in a reasonably cross-platform manner).
The method of acquiring the path may provide an attack surface which probably wouldn't exist otherwise. This means that a potential attacker could trick the program to see different binary data (provided by him) like which the executable actually has, exposing any vulnerability which might reside in the parser of the data.
It depends on how you want other systems to see your binary.
Digital signed in Windows
The exe format allows for verifying the file has not been modified since publishing. This would allow you to :-
Compile your file
Add your data packet
Sign your file and publish it.
The advantage of following this system, is that "everybody" agrees your file has not been modified since signing.
The easiest way to achieve this scheme, is to use a resource. Windows resources can be added post- linking. They are protected by the authenticode digital signature, and your program can extract the resource data from itself.
It used to be possible to increase the signature to include binary data. Unfortunately this has been banned. There were binaries which used data in the signature section. Unfortunately this was used maliciously. Some details here msdn blog
Breaking the signature
If re-signing is not an option, then the result would be treated as insecure. It is worth noting here, that appended data is insecure, and can be modified without people being able to tell, but so is the code in your binary.
Appending data to a binary does break the digital signature, and also means the end-user can't tell if the code has been modified.
This means that any self-protection you add to your code to ensure the data blob is still secure, would not prevent your code from being modified to remove the check.
Running module
Windows GetModuleFileName allows the running path to be found.
Linux offers /proc/self or /proc/pid.
Unix does not seem to have a method which is reliable.
Data reading
The approach of the zip format, is to have a directory written to the end of the file. This means the data can be found at the end of the location, and then looked backwards for the start of the data. The advantage here, is the data blob is signposted from the end of the data, rather than the natural start.
Question
I am wondering why do we connect to sockets by using functions like hton to take care of endianness when we could have sent the ip in plain char array.
Say we want to connect to 184.54.12.169
There is an explanation to this but I cannot figure out why we use integers instead of char, and so involving ourself in endianness hell.
I think char out_ip[] = "184.54.12.169" could have theoretically made it.
Please explain me the subtleties i don't get here.
The basic networking APIs are low level functions. These are very thin wrappers around kernel system calls. Removing these low level functions, forcing everything to use strings, would be rather bad for a low-level API like that, especially considering how tedious string handling is in C. As a concrete hurdle, even IP strings would not be fixed length, so handling them is a lot more complex than just plain 32 bit integers. And moving string handling to kernel is really quite against what kernel is supposed to be, handling arbitrary user strings is really user space problem.
So, you want to create higher-level functions which would accept strings and do the conversion in the library. But, adding such higher level "convenience" functions all over the place in the core libraries would bloat them, because certainly passing IP numbers is not the only place for such convenience. These functions would need to be maintained forever and included everywhere, after they became part of standard (official like POSIX, or de-facto) libraries.
So, removing the low-level functions is not really an option, and adding more functions for higher-level API in the same library is not a good option either.
So solution is to use another library to provide higher level networking API, which could for example handle address strings directly. Not sure what's out ther for C, but it's almost a given for other languages, which also have "real" strings built in so using them is not a hassle.
Because that's how an IP is transmitted in a packet. The "www.xxx.yyy.zzz" string form is really just a human readable form of a 4 byte integer that allows us to see the hierarchical nature a little easier. Sending a whole string would take up a lot more space as well.
Say number 127536 that requires 7 bytes not four. In addition you need to parse it.
I.e. more efficient and do not have to deal with invalid values.
I want to enable/disable IPv4/IPv6 in Linux programmatically using C. Is this possible? If yes, kindly please let me know how to do this and any reference to sample program would also be very helpful.
See here: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/66574/how-can-i-disable-ipv6-in-custom-built-embedded-setup
Unfortunately, the _sysctl(2) system call API is deprecated, so you are left with writing to files in /proc/ directly (which is easy enough from C, just a little funny smelling):
The important bits seem to be writing a textual value of 1 (text, not int) to at least the first of these two files, and possibly both:
/proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/all/disable_ipv6
/proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/default/disable_ipv6
As for IPv4, it's less clear to me. Do you really need to disable IPv4 while leaving IPv6 running?
Since there is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_page_437 For MSDOS, is there something similar for Linux systems? Is it possible to access that font data via userland program? I would actually just need an access to the actual bit patterns which define the font, and I would do the rendering myself. I'm fairly sure that something like this exists, but I haven't been able to find what exactly is it and how to access it. After all, e.g. text mode console font has to reside somewhere, and I really do hope it is "rawly" accessible somehow for a userland program.
Before I forget, I'm programming my program in C, and have access only to the "standard" linux/posix development headers. The only thing I could came up with myself is to use the fonts in /usr/share/fonts, but having to write my own implementations to extract the data from there doesn't sound really an option; I would really want to achieve this with the least amount of bytes possible, so I feel I'm left with finding a standard way of doing this.
It's not really feasible for me to store my own 8x8 ASCII-compatible font with the program either(it takes some 1024 bytes(128 chars * 8x8 bits) just to store the font, which is definitely unacceptable for the strict size limits(some < 1024 bytes for code+data) which I am working with), so being able to use the font data stored at the system itself would greatly simplify my task.
I had a look at consolechars sources and it looks like there is a whole library for this kind of stuff. On Ubuntu it's named libconsole and header files (like lct/font.h) are in the console-tools-dev package. There are functions to find and load fonts which seems to be exactly what you need. And consolechars source is a nice example of how to use them.
You should use freetype , its commonly installed in all the Linuxes.
I'm a bit new to C, but I've done my homework (some tutorials, books, etc.) and I need to program a simple server to handle requests from clients and interact with a db. I've gone through Beej's Guide to Network programming, but I'm a bit unsure how to piece together and handle different parts of the data getting sent back and forth.
For instance, say the client is sending some information that the server will put in multiple fields. How do I piece together that data to be sent and then break it back up on the server side?
Thanks,
Eric
If I understand correctly, you're asking, "how does the server understand the information the client sends it"?
If that's what you're asking, the answer is simple: it's mutually agreed upon ahead of time that the data structures each uses will be compatible. I.e. you decide upon what your communication protocol will be ahead of time.
So, for example, if I have a client-server application where the client connects and can ask for things such as "time", "date" and can say "settime " and "setdate ", I need to write my server in such a way that it will understand those commands.
Obviously, in the above case it's trivial, since it'd just be a text-based protocol. But let's say you're writing an application that will return a struct of information, i.e.
struct Person {
char* name;
int age;
int heightInInches;
// ... other fields ...
};
You might write the entire struct out from the server/client. In this case there are a few things to be aware of:
You need to hton/ntoh properly
You need to make sure that your client and server both can understand the struct in question.
You may or may not have to align on a 4B boundary (because if you don't, different C compilers may do different things, which may burn you between the client and the server, or it may not).
In general, though, when writing a client/server app, the most important thing to get right is the communication protocol.
I'm not sure if this quite answers your question, though. Is this what you were after, or were you asking more about how, exactly, do you use the send/recv functions?
First, you define how the packet will look - what information will be in it. Make sure the definition is in an architecture-neutral format. That means that you specify it in a sequence that does not depend on whether the machine is big-endian or little-endian, for example, nor on whether you are compiling with 32-bit long or 64-bit long values. If the content is of variable length, make sure the definition contains the information needed to tell how long each part is - in particular, each variable length part should be preceded by a suitable count of its length.
When you need to package the data for transmission, you will take the raw (machine-specific) values and write them into a buffer (think 'character array') at the appropriate positions, in the appropriate format.
This buffer will be sent across the wire to the receiver, which will read it into another buffer, and then reverse the process to obtain the information from the buffer into local variables.
There are functions such as ntohs() to convert from a network ('n') to host ('h') format for a 'short' (meaning 16-bit) integer, and htonl() to convert from a host 'long' (32-bit integer) to network format - etc.
One good book for networking is Stevens' "UNIX Network Programming, Vol 1, 3rd Edn". You can find out more about it at its web site, including example code.
As already mentioned above what you need is a previously agreed means of communication. One thing that helps me is to use xmls to communicate.
e.g. You need time to send time to client then include it in a tag called time.
Then parse it on the client side and read the tag value.
The biggest advantage is that once you have a parser in place on client side then even if you have to send some new information them just have to agree on a tag name that will be parsed on the client side.
It helps me , I hope it helps you too.