single button to trigger BI shortcut / profile change (on locked pc)

cjowers

Getting the hang of it
Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
107
Reaction score
36
Location
AUS
Bit of a programming project here... I'm wondering if anyone can think of a method to:

turn off motion detection on certain cameras on a locked windows PC running BI service, using a single button or keystroke.

My BI pc doesn't have it's own monitor, but does have a keyboard, and I'd like to be able to change these settings on the fly very quickly (<2 seconds). I know this requirement is a bit over the top, but I'd like to try / learn what I can do, even if it's a bit ridiculous (when compared to hooking up a spare monitor and logging in like everyone else or disabling the login)

I think I can write a script to listen for a keystroke while the computer is locked (i think some media keys even work when locked)...
-But can BI (run as a service, minimized) still action keyboard shortcuts (or other triggers) from such a script?
-Can BI action from shortcut keys when minimized or locked? I know some (user type) script actions may not be possible on the locked computer due to how windows lock screen works.

So just wondering if anyone has a good idea to try, or examples of using BI actions without using a mouse/monitor, and then ideally while the pc is locked. note, PC is not currently connected to the home wifi, but I realize that could be another way to access and trigger.

Thanks
 

pozzello

Known around here
Joined
Oct 7, 2015
Messages
2,270
Reaction score
1,117
i'd look into doing it over the network somehow via the same http-based command set used by the app and UI3...
 

fenderman

Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
36,897
Reaction score
21,250
You can do it from the app or webserver in 2 seconds.
 

cjowers

Getting the hang of it
Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
107
Reaction score
36
Location
AUS
i'd look into doing it over the network somehow via the same http-based command set used by the app and UI3...
Thanks for this, yes this is kinda what I had in mind!

But I'd like to send the http-based command from a mechanical button, rather than through another device's software (+ device login). I suppose a headless, dedicated RasPi / arduino could do this without login, but seems like I could just do it on the target PC itself with the keyboard or serial port inputs. maybe too hard though...
 

cjowers

Getting the hang of it
Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
107
Reaction score
36
Location
AUS
You can do it from the app or webserver in 2 seconds.
I thought this might be the case, I may look into it again, especially when I need better remote access. im naturally paranoid tho, and network security seems to be a pretty big rabbit hole for a novice :)

Thanks for the suggestion
 

fenderman

Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
36,897
Reaction score
21,250
I thought this might be the case, I may look into it again, especially when I need better remote access. im naturally paranoid tho, and network security seems to be a pretty big rabbit hole for a novice :)

Thanks for the suggestion
You dont need to setup remote access to use the app or the webserver because you will be local to the network.
 

cjowers

Getting the hang of it
Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
107
Reaction score
36
Location
AUS
You dont need to setup remote access to use the app or the webserver because you will be local to the network.
Yes, you are correct.
I was more thinking along the lines of, even just connecting onto a local network (depending on the setup and configuration) there can be so many other devices connected, and often those devices can already have outside access (or malware or lack security patches) and therefore ways in (usually cuz poorly managed, but still). My basic understanding is that even with a perfectly managed network setup, if things are connected together, there can be security holes. For instance, I don't want someone using my cams to DDoS a service (feels like a moral obligation to lock things down) and I don't really know what is possible (or what I don't know).
Of coarse, if I needed remote access, I would certainly go this route and just attempt to configure a network to make it somewhat secure and get on with things, but it seems easier to just keep various systems physically segregated/disconnected for the moment until needed.
Apologies if I am wrong about all of this, but I don't want to spend the time to understand it right now :)
Thanks
 

fenderman

Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
36,897
Reaction score
21,250
Yes, you are correct.
I was more thinking along the lines of, even just connecting onto a local network (depending on the setup and configuration) there can be so many other devices connected, and often those devices can already have outside access (or malware or lack security patches) and therefore ways in (usually cuz poorly managed, but still). My basic understanding is that even with a perfectly managed network setup, if things are connected together, there can be security holes. For instance, I don't want someone using my cams to DDoS a service (feels like a moral obligation to lock things down) and I don't really know what is possible (or what I don't know).
Of coarse, if I needed remote access, I would certainly go this route and just attempt to configure a network to make it somewhat secure and get on with things, but it seems easier to just keep various systems physically segregated/disconnected for the moment until needed.
Apologies if I am wrong about all of this, but I don't want to spend the time to understand it right now :)
Thanks
You are way overthinking this. Folks using cams for a ddos attack are accessing the cameras that are port forwarded or using p2p. No one is jumping from your phone or tablet to your cameras. If someone that much control of your phone or pc they are not wasting time on a ddos attack. You have much bigger problems.
 

cjowers

Getting the hang of it
Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
107
Reaction score
36
Location
AUS
You are way overthinking this.
Yes, I agree. I suppose an unplugged cable is just easy for me to understand (and less to think about! haha). If i don't need everything connected, why should it be?
But as you say, maybe this is the best solution. A button sure would be cool though...

You have much bigger problems.
The goal is zero problems! :)

In all seriousness, I definitely appreciate your suggestions and reassurance on these topics , so thank you for taking the time to help. Maybe I'll be back asking you networking questions very soon!
 

fenderman

Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
36,897
Reaction score
21,250
Yes, I agree. I suppose an unplugged cable is just easy for me to understand (and less to think about! haha). If i don't need everything connected, why should it be?
But as you say, maybe this is the best solution. A button sure would be cool though...


The goal is zero problems! :)

In all seriousness, I definitely appreciate your suggestions and reassurance on these topics , so thank you for taking the time to help. Maybe I'll be back asking you networking questions very soon!
you can setup a local network with zero remote access is well. This is foolish. By this logic you dont have internet access at home or on your phone.
 

cjowers

Getting the hang of it
Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
107
Reaction score
36
Location
AUS
you can setup a local network with zero remote access is well.
sure, but I also like to install potentially dodgy programs from random people on this pc (only because it is air gapped). Wouldn't that add some risk by connecting it to anything else on my network? I know there are vlans and other segregation methods, but (for me) physical segregation of the dodgy stuff works just fine too.

tinfoil hat aside, maybe you could share something from the app or webserver method? Would this just be navigating through the app to change the profile? Or roughly how many clicks are we talking?

Thanks fenderman
 
Top