Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes!

33 (97.1%)

No!

0 (0%)

I don't care!

1 (2.9%)

Total Members Voted: 34

[Tuicemen]

I've been asking for this since the first wm100 prototype was created
I've been told authinx wishes to do this but the manufacture is dragging their feet. Maybe it is thought I'm the only one wishing this
However if this was released we wouldn't have to wait for Authinx to find a developer to create something.
Maybe with enough votes it will be seen as something that should be pushed harder on the manufacturer.

[Knightrider]

Remember Bluewatch? If we had an SDK for this unit and some conditional logic, I could automate the porch lights when my phone connected to the home WiFi and it was dark outside.

[Tuicemen]

The protocol being published would make this a very appealing device to every one.
This would allow communication to it directly and expand everyone's HA setup beyond what the app is capable of and may never be capable of.

[dave w]

I've been told authinx wishes to do this but the manufacture is dragging their feet.
Maybe with enough votes it will be seen as something that should be pushed harder on the manufacturer.

I'm confused. I thought the China manufacturer worked for Authinx (?). 

[Noam]

I would also like to see an SDK, preferably a multi-platform one, so software could be written for Windows, iOS, Linux, Android, as well as other popular languages (PHP, Java, Perl, Javascript, Python, etc).

[Tuicemen]

There will be no SDK I was told this from day one.
Since this is a internet of things device, once you know the protocol for the get, push, pulls (the protocol) you can use it with any platform.

[HA Dave]

There will be no SDK I was told this from day one.

An open SDK would be awesome. Has anyone  popped one of these baby's open yet? Or... any of the hubs out there for that matter?

[racerfern]

I'm confused. I thought the China manufacturer worked for Authinx (?).

A month or two ago there was another post that seemed to imply the manufacturer was in charge, not Authinx. I'm not going to bother trying to find it, but I remember being taken aback by the comment. I won't mention who the poster was; that I do remember.

[Tuicemen]

I'm confused. I thought the China manufacturer worked for Authinx (?).

A month or two ago there was another post that seemed to imply the manufacturer was in charge, not Authinx. I'm not going to bother trying to find it, but I remember being taken aback by the comment. I won't mention who the poster was; that I do remember.

It may have been me or dhouston! I remember the post as well, just not the full details.

Authinx has the manufacture supplying them units but that doesn't mean they have to supply all info without charge.
I believe that may be the sticking point or the protocol was in such a mess they didn't wish to reveal that.
Authinx was so far in it was to expensive to go elsewhere by that time.
The Manufacture has never said no to supplying the protocol they just have ignored requests for it.

As for a SDK I'm told it is just to expensive to have the current developer create.
And the protocol would be required for that as well.

[dave w]

I'm confused. I thought the China manufacturer worked for Authinx (?).

Authinx has the manufacture supplying them units but that doesn't mean they have to supply all info without charge.

OK I got it now. And that does make sense for a contract manufacturer.

[racerfern]

I'm confused. I thought the China manufacturer worked for Authinx (?).

Authinx has the manufacture supplying them units but that doesn't mean they have to supply all info without charge.

OK I got it now. And that does make sense for a contract manufacturer.

That should have been negotiated before it got this far. Now the manufacturer is looking for a homerun.

[Tuicemen]

That should have been negotiated before it got this far. Now the manufacturer is looking for a homerun.

I agree, there were several negotiation issues that were over looked and not just by Authinx, the Manufacture also messed up with the developer they got, that is another reason no SDK

[HA Dave]

.... there were several negotiation issues that were over looked......... another reason no SDK

International negotiations, product development, and virtual property laws..... doesn't sound all that complicated 

[toasterking]

My WM100 has not arrived yet, but it would be interesting to sniff the packets and see how protected the WiFi communication from the app to the hub is.  If the binary data is sent without encryption, reverse engineering the stream should be feasible.  If it is sent encrypted but the data is deterministic (i.e. they're not appending random data to the frames to obfuscate the resulting encrypted stream), then it's probably still doable albeit a bit more esoteric, and possibly requiring a MITM approach.  (Note that I'm not necessarily volunteering myself!  )

But yes, I'd much prefer an intentional release of the protocol with accompanying documentation and a promise not to break it with a firmware update.  And I'd rather not make it more difficult for Authinx or their manufacturer to control/protect their IP.

Regardless, dooming this device to live the rest of its life chained to one smartphone app would be criminal.

[Tuicemen]

I actualy started some work at hacking the Wm100  I found the app uses the standard Internet of things connection  protocol you need the info contained in the QR code as it contains the conection string the wm100 expects. Next you could utilize chromes postman to send the post put get commands.
Wireshark mau also be useful  but unless the WM sent back an error stating what it was expecting your left guessing.