No U PNP
computer.rip
computer.rip
For me the concern is not malware but crappy/insecure software proudly exposing itself on the internet.
Many IP cameras will use UPnP to make their web interface publicly accessible. Because of the long history of opening router ports, seeing a random open port on my public IP was quite surprising. If you haven't recently, check your own public IP in Shodan.io .
The cameras I've used run crappy web interfaces that almost certainly do not get security updates. If an attack was successful on the camera, from there the attacker would have access to my internal network.
By equating the two and discarding all of UPnP's other local service discovery features, for fear of IGDP specifically, perhaps we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The only service advertised by the router is the part you don’t want anyway.
It's admittedly a weak point to make in the context of consumer gear, though. Last I checked, even router OS's with sprawling functionality like OpenWRT and PFsense don't offer SSDP relaying as a supported feature.
If you spent less than $200 on your router, there is probably no difference between disabling all of its UPnP capability and disabling IGDP specifically.
my thoughts exactly.
How do I use this site? Do I have to register?
They are stating that they have information about you and that they have information for you. And, yes, they do it proactively. Doesn't that count for you as search results with a query you didn't submit?
Nobody cares about ISOs in the web world, everything that's not an RFC will never receive well penetrated adoption.
On the other hand printers are working on your smartphones but not on your Linux desktop. Ever thought why that is? The reason is an outdated resolve concept that needs lots of (possibly going wrong) manual configuration just to get a Multicast DNS-SD resolution feature going.
It's such a hardcore fail when considering that the goal for zerconf and DNS-SD was to ease things up, and on Linux it made things worse because of config fatigue.
All of that said, DLNA Inc. provided the specs only to members. I do not know what membership cost, but I suspect it was well more than ISO charges for standards copies. I have no doubt this was a hindrance to DLNA acceptance in software, as it would have blocked out a lot of small and open-source efforts. For hardware vendors, having to pay hefty membership dues to an implementer's group to get access to standards is par for the course and how about half of the hardware interconnect standards work, and I don't think it caused much hesitation there. This might help explain why, for a period of 5+ years, embedded DLNA clients were pretty standard in HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players but there were surprisingly few software options. It's no doubt also a factor that the major promoters of both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray themselves were also members of DLNA and may have incentivized their licensees to implement it.
What distribution are you using? On those desktop oriented ones, it works out of the box.
I see two scanners for the same reason - one via WSD, one through AirScan.
I think you can get the specs here: https://openconnectivity.org/developer/specifications/upnp-r...
> On the other hand printers are working on your smartphones but not on your Linux desktop.
I don't think this has anything to do with upnp? Most printers nowadays also support IPP (thanks to apple's cups push?), so ..
That's not the case though. The only issues I've had were: 1. missing drivers (a universal issue), 2. changed IP after initial config (because the configurator save the IP and not hostname - I've seen this happen on Windows too, 3. incomplete drivers (because the printer doesn't fully adhere to the standards and vendor drivers aren't complete/available)
So what do printers have to do with any of this?
The original post was about zeroconf, and therefore the later multicast DNS-SD based discovery protocol [1]. Namely aireplay, airport, airprint, airscan based protocols that multicast their functionality and protocols via DNS to the 224.0.0.251 or [ff02::fb] addresses on port 5353.
Printers these days do have primarily support for airprint + airscan so they work out of the box on MacOS with all the GUIs that the OS has to offer. Not so much for WSD or other protocols that Linux/Windows still need. CUPS or postscript support usually isn't complete for anything else than TIFF, because nobody seems to give a damn about implementing a PDF rasterizer on-device, let alone gutenprint or postscript/ghostscript support for their scanner devices.
Reading through the sibling comments you have to recognize that my interpretation of "what is working" is a different one than a developer's perspective. If someone without programming/linux configuration knowledge cannot print or scan via WiFi, your tool is pretty much useless and didn't replace the 100 fragmented alternatives that existed before it already.
My complaints were mostly about avahi's integrated discovery tools like avahi-browse and avahi-discover which are only tools to discover printers, but are themselves useless for printing or scanning on their own (and they're not transport-level libraries for DNS-SD IANA registered protocols either).
Literally the only scanning tool that works in the Linux world is "simple-scan" [2], which requires preinstalled "sane-airscan" and an integrated avahi-daemon in the resolv.conf/nsswitch.conf. Don't ask about parallel IPv4 + IPv6 support, because that's totally unsupported and will crash in multiple NAT scenarios the daemon in an endless loop, and is the reason why every Linux wiki will recommend to add "mdns4_minimal" to the /etc/nsswitch.conf file instead of "mdns_minimal". [3]
Coming back to my point: I mean, every developer can send a postscript file via bash to an IPP port, but I wouldn't call it a working UX or UI. When comparing the aforementioned shitshow with how everything is nicely working on MacOS, Linux is basically a bad joke when it comes to mDNS support. I mean, the technology is almost 15 years old now, and we still can't have nice printer support on Linux. Using Apple's CUPS as an excuse to say we support printers is a 20 years old excuse. And a deprecated one, btw, because PPD support has been deprecated for years now ... so good luck getting a new printer that works with that.
Nonetheless fixing my printer on Linux and debugging what all this stuff is for days inspired me to build a Web Browser that uses mDNS for local peer discovery, so at least something good came out of it.
Coffee too cold? Teapot protocol should have used QUIC.
- Open-source controllers are unstable and with terrible UX when they manage to discover the renderers and servers. Closed source controllers all seemed suspicious to me, esp. on Android. - Renderers all support different media formats, some support sutitles, others not at all...
Don't get me wrong, I marvel at the engineering thought that went into designing the spec, however adoption was never up to par IMO. I'd love to be proven wrong that this is no longer the case, however the defeatist tone of TFA makes me doubt this...
On the issue with NAT-PMP, PCP, IGD, I am somewhat jaded. I use OpenWrt and XMPP. For my home use this setup works hassle-free and file transfers and calls just work. (IoT is in a different vlan, cut off from the internet). However I doubt setting this up is not really something the average consumer would do. Maybe only if pirating as Torrent clients, too have very good support for the protocol.
And this is all sort of beside the fact that Microsoft's incomplete implementation lead to Twonky and Plex as competitors, both of which had their own problems and sort of muddied the waters on the whole thing. The HP Home Servers shipped with WMC, Plex, and Twonky all running by default! You can imagine how confusing that could be to deal with.
It's hard to say why exactly this was, other than that I think Microsoft sort of heavily pushed DLNA support in embedded devices like HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players but there was no real quality enforcement, so a lot of vendors put in a token effort. The fact that the DLNA spec was relatively complex is presumably another reason, and lead to a lot of rework of the same ideas over the following years.
I haven't looked into twonky and plex, but are they even trying to solve the same problem that DLNA aimed to do? My understanding is that neither of those have submitted anything to standardizing bodies like IETF or ISO so far, but maybe there is no need for such as the content is being streamed directly from the internet.
While UPnP was accepted as an ISO standard and by extension DLNA was very ISO-standards based, I think the ISO angle tends to be a distraction... the meaningful authority on DLNA, including the specifications and certification, was always the DLNA incorporation itself (a non-profit partnership of its promoters). Many DLNA implementations predated ISO acceptance of UPnP A/V on which its based, and the way to get the specifications was not by paying a hefty sum to ISO but by paying an even heftier sum (membership dues) to DLNA Inc. So DLNA was an "open standard" compared to e.g. Plex that does not intend to be a multi-vendor ecosystem, but it was not as "open" as you would hope which was no doubt a factor in its limited adoption... some device vendors like Logitech and Sony bet on it pretty heavily in hardware products but it probably would have seen more of a software ecosystem if the specs were easier to obtain.
This is of course not dissimilar to many other "open standards" like USB (controlled far more by USB-IF than by any other standards body). Of course USB versions are typically submitted to general standards bodies like IEC, but when there's already a domain-specific organization promulgating standards usually the only reason it gets submitted to general standards bodies is for compliance purposes, e.g. it's not unusual for government customers to require that things be standardized through ISO (which is basically the origin story of POSIX). In the case of USB I think IEC acceptance is mostly driven by safety regulations in some countries that require electrical interconnects to be approved by a recognized standards body. I'm far from an expert in this field, this is just what I've observed about the interaction between implementation groups and general standards bodies.
On my network zeroconf/service discovery is still a thing. I won't be using cloud services for anything that can be done locally. As someone who grew up in a world of TCP/IP everything (or at least I thought so; that's certainly all I learnt), it's interesting to know it wasn't always the case. Even though we learn about the various layers of network architecture I think too many people still consider IP to be the only possible solution at that layer. With IPv6 there is a certain elegance to it, I suppose (address any device from anywhere in the world), but it's completely unnecessary for local traffic when you think about it.
On the "DLNA is dead" note. As someone who has only recently got into the whole network attached media player thing, what are "current" solutions to the problem of "multiple players, multiple controllers, multiple sources"? Basically I want to have multiple speaker systems and use my phone to play stuff from my local music collection.
Surprising number of recently updated repos that match the search term "DLNA": https://github.com/search?o=desc&q=dlna&s=updated&type=Repos...