integration biometrics system

[enrique.lopez]

It's possible integration biometrics system in TCP/IP protocol. Example ACTATEK http://www.actatek.com/actatek_overview.html
Thanks

[blackoper]

I don't think so currently. I thought about this myself. You'd probably have to adapt code from somewhere like MisterHouse but I'm just not sure about it

[hari]

I don't think so currently. I thought about this myself. You'd probably have to adapt code from somewhere like MisterHouse but I'm just not sure about it

where is the problem?? If it has an interface it can be interfaced (of course specs help ).

best regards,
Hari

[ddamron]

yes, I agree with hari..

If we can talk to it, it can be implemented.

As long as we know how to talk to it (protocol) it doesn't matter.. we can use an IP Socket, Serial whatever.

HTH

Dan

[Matthew]

It's possible integration biometrics system in TCP/IP protocol. Example ACTATEK http://www.actatek.com/actatek_overview.html

Biometrics is one popular auth method, but there's generally nearly none in LMCE itself. LMCE currently has no access control except console/Web logins for administrators. Regular users of controllers (whether Orbiters or eg. HA hardware) face no access control, except what might be available on a device (like a PC) running the UI. For mobile devices, there's practically none (except maybe "unlock keypad" if activated on a mobile phone).  This missing security feature will inevitably be either exploited or will deny access when it's needed by a legit user.

LMCE could be more secure, and still usable, if the DCERouter required authentication and authorization of a controller's user before using it. auth-in/auth-out/auth-expiration hooks and an auth-module in LMCE with authorization state in the DB would support this facility. Then whatever supplies the auth data can just ensure it complies with an auth-module, with the interface just mapping auth-in/out/expiration to whatever UI is used. To start all auth could just default to "authorized", so LMCE would appear to work exactly the same way. Multiple users with multiple access levels (admin, devices-group-N) would offer a security layer that LMCE currently lacks, but would be consistent with how people expect to use their automated site.

[ddamron]

Matthew,

<sorry to everyone else, I have to inject here>

Change you attitude.
Instead of saying what Linuxmce DOESN'T have, either post some POSITIVE info, or keep your negative comments to yourself.
You've been here long enough to know this is a work in progress.
I haven't seen any code from you, maybe you can do something about that.

Start getting involved in a POSITIVE manner.

<I'm really don't want this to become a flame war, but something needed to be said.>

Dan

[Matthew]

<sorry to everyone else, I have to inject here>

Change you attitude.
Instead of saying what Linuxmce DOESN'T have, either post some POSITIVE info, or keep your negative comments to yourself.
You've been here long enough to know this is a work in progress.
I haven't seen any code from you, maybe you can do something about that.

Start getting involved in a POSITIVE manner.

<I'm really don't want this to become a flame war, but something needed to be said.>

I don't know why you're flaming me. All I did was point out what LMCE could have, to use biometrics. I didn't say LMCE was bad for not having it. I just warned that its lack is a security risk that adding it could fix.

I've been involved in quite a "positive manner", regardless of how you want to look at it. I've done quite a bit of helping others with the info I've managed to glean from what's available. I've done a fair amount of improving the wiki content. I've helped work on some design problems. Just today I bought a license for another developer so they can work on Bluetooth support. I've been trying to keep the UI3 discussion, that Pluto has completely dropped from public view, going - after contributing quite a bit to it when it was able to be active. I really don't have to justify what I've been doing, because my actual contributions speak for themselves. But since you flamed, I'll defend myself rather than just let you stop me from contributing.

I also have been trying to code some patches to the actual C++ of LMCE. But it's proven impossible to get either the complete facts about a proper build environment for LMCE, or even definitive answers on which is the actual source to upgrade.

Now I know that you've contributed a good amount yourself, especially your leadership in the Home Automation. I respect and appreciate that work. But where do you get off insulting me and dismissing my contributions when I can give them, despite the problems I've had even getting basic developer info to contribute more? Just because you've succeeded in contributing more doesn't mean you should go slamming me (or anyone else - I'm not the only one complaining with reason lately) for contributing what we can, when it has some value. That's the kind of behavior that can kill a community, reducing it to just a few people who can't work together, but can only send in a few patches to a project which struggles along without critical mass.

To be clear: I'm not posting this just to complain about your flaming me (even as you claim not to want to start a flame war). If you, or someone else, wants to help me (and anyone else) to contribute more by specifying the actual build environment, tools and protocol, please go ahead. It'll help make LMCE better, and I'll forgive whatever style you want to attack me with - if it comes with some useful info, and not just some high-handed flaming.

[ddamron]

Matthew, Well said.

I'll try to SHOW you what I mean:
"Biometrics is one popular auth method, but there's generally nearly none in LMCE itself."

could have been rephrased to:

"Although currently, support is limited..."

"LMCE currently has no access control except console/Web logins for administrators."

could have been rephrased to
"Current Admin access control is console/Web logins"

you see what I mean?

It's not WHAT you say, it's HOW you say it.

[Matthew]

Matthew, Well said.

I'll try to SHOW you what I mean:
"Biometrics is one popular auth method, but there's generally nearly none in LMCE itself."

could have been rephrased to:

"Although currently, support is limited..."

"LMCE currently has no access control except console/Web logins for administrators."

could have been rephrased to
"Current Admin access control is console/Web logins"

you see what I mean?

It's not WHAT you say, it's HOW you say it.

In discussing technical topics, what you say is important. How you say it does matter, but the way I said it was not antagonistic. The fact is that the rephrases you just offered go out of their way to avoid the actual issue, that the facility I'm talking about doesn't exist in LMCE - but biometrics depends on it existing. It really seems like you are the one who's being overly sensitive and defensive. Reading attacks or slights into simple statements of fact that I don't treat as value judgements of anyone or even LMCE, but just as the direct statement of what's missing that I am about to propose a way of adding.

I mean, with the kinds of flames I'm taking on this site (as are others) for no good reason, including that last one from you, I think lessons in netiquette are better directed at someone else other than at me. Especially when what I said, and how, wasn't inappropriate in any way.

I'm really disappointed that I spend more time these days talking about interpersonal conduct in this community than I do engaged in problemsolving - though I'm doing my best. I think it's mainly a symptom of everyone waiting for 0710 to be released. Now don't take this as a flame (you've got me second-guessing every comment about any LMCE defect), but we expected it to be in our hands back in November, or maybe December, or maybe January, and it'll be March before we do. I'm also waiting, and trying to help during the wait. I think we should try to help each other get through the wait until the release by working together, rather than getting at each other's throats. OK?

[hari]

guys you are way offtopic.

I think it would be cool to arm/disarm with some finger print sensor or iris scanner Or open the front door.

* hari searches a vandal proof outdoor fps with ethernet and open interface ,)

[ddamron]

matthew,

Ok.

Hari,

I have a USB Fingerprint scanner somewhere.. made by APC..  got to find it.
I'll see what I can come up with on that device..
Right now, my core is down, trying to get it back online (damn fiire) hehe

Also, www.smarthome.com has a few doorlocks with fingerprint ID..

[Matthew]

guys you are way offtopic.

Yes, and now we're back. Thanks.

I think it would be cool to arm/disarm with some finger print sensor or iris scanner Or open the front door.

* hari searches a vandal proof outdoor fps with ethernet and open interface ,)

Also, a Java applet in a phone with fingerprint biometrics that converts an authenticated fingerprint into a password for authentication would be very useful, without installing biometrics HW in the house itself, and allowing the same biometric access remotely.

That's one reason I propose that adding biometrics to LMCE come with an auth interface that biometrics hooks into.

[teedge77]

so many whiny little bitches. thats right...its not what you say its how you say it. so quit whining and taking everything so personal. so many thin skinned, cry babies on here.