I have a simple python program that attempts to retrieve the access logs from the biometric card reader.
The following program managed to retrieve the system log.
from onvif import ONVIFCamera
mycam = ONVIFCamera('192.168.1.108', 80, 'admin', 'password', '/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/wsdl')
tLog = mycam.devicemgmt.GetSystemLog({'System'})
print(tLog['String'])
But when i changed the argument string for the GetSystemLog function to 'Access', it still returns me the system log.
from onvif import ONVIFCamera
mycam = ONVIFCamera('192.168.1.108', 80, 'admin', 'password', '/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/wsdl')
tLog = mycam.devicemgmt.GetSystemLog({'Access'})
print(tLog['String'])
Can I ask the community how can I retrieve the AccessLog in this case?
Thanks!
The information stored in the System and Access log is not defined by ONVIF. In fact, if you read §8.3.11 of the core specs, you will find this:
The exact format of the system logs is outside the scope of this standard.
I suspect that you are trying the get the information from an access control device. If this is the case, you should use the correct functions specified by Profile A and Profile C to fetch the information, not point to the log provided by the devices service.
Related
I am trying to connect to a peer of the network via fabric-network SDK 2.2.
I have taken as starting point the connection profile provided in here, modified to my network setup and try to connect, but got the error in the title.
As test, I have copied the example, expecting to receive a different error related to configuration, but the error is the same (so should not be a problem with the format of the JSON).
Console log shows the JSON is properly read from the file.
Any way I can debug fabric-network SDK to find out where the problem is ?
Thanks in advance for your help!
Did you parse the JSON string into an actual object ? I suspect you are trying to just pass a string into the connect request.
Take a look here https://github.com/hyperledger/fabric-samples/blob/22393b629bcac7f7807cc6998aa44e06ecc77426/fabcar/javascript/invoke.js#L17 to see an example of how a connection profile is read and parsed into a json object before being used in the Gateway.connect method.
This generaly happen when you call
await gateway.connect(ccp, { wallet, identity: USER_NAME, discovery: { enabled: true, asLocalhost: true } });
Without a valid wallet or ccp, So check if both are correctly initialized
Am using python googleapi client library to get instance data for a project
Am getting instances like this:
from googleapiclient import discovery
from google.oauth2 import service_account
scopes = ['https://www.googleapis.com/auth/cloud-platform']
service_cred_file = 'service-credentials.json'
zone = 'us-central1-c'
project_id = 'my_project_id'
credentials = service_account.Credentials.from_service_account_file(service_cred_file, scopes=scopes)
service = discovery.build('compute', 'v1', credentials=credentials)
request = service.instances().list(project=project_id, zone=zone)
while request is not None:
response = request.execute()
for instance in response['items']:
print(instance)
Instance response does not contain instance price, uptime and user data (data of user that created instance)
How can i get these attributes?
The shortest answer to your question is that, currently, it is not possible to get this information from the “compute” API.
However, there are other APIs which can give you this information, even if not as easy as just retrieving a property from an instance.
For uptime and user data you could use the Monitoring Client Library.
For user data you can use this client library to look for the logs of the “insert” protoPayload.methodName for a specific instance, and get the information about the user from the protoPayload.authenticationInfo property.
To get information about the uptime, you would need to set uptime checks and calculate the uptime from the logs generated by the check you created.
For information about pricing however, it’s not possible to do the same.
I was looking through different possible solutions and I even found the page for the Cloud Billing API, which has a skus() method, however since the documentation is scarce, and there is no filter for specific instances as resources, this would probably be even harder to implement.
I have been reading the documentation at https://docs.truevault.com/ but I am a little confused. I read this on the true vault site:
If you plan on using any of the server-side libraries, please ensure
any hosting environment you use is HIPAA compliant.
I took this to mean that TrueValut could support a standalone (client side only) mobile application architecture. Where the TrueVault API was the only server side interaction.
However my understanding of the documentation is that:
An API_KEY is required to register a new user.
Any API_KEY provides full access to all data vaults and JSON documents stored in TrueVault.
If both of these assumptions are correct that would mean it would be impossible to register new users directly from the client side app, forcing me to use a costly and resource intensive HIPPA compliment web server. The only way to get around this would be top hard code the API_KEY into the app, an obvious no go if that API_KEY can access all of my TrueVault data.
For my use case I have the following requirements for TrueVault for me to be able to consider using it (I would imagine these requirements are the same for anyone looking to develop a client side only healthcare application):
A user can sign up via the API directly from my client side app without requiring any sensitive keys or root auth data.
A user can authenticate using only the data they provided to sign up (username/email/password). My app is multi platform I cant ask them to remember their API keys to log in.
A user can Read/Write/Update/Delete data linked to their profile. They can not access any data from another user using their credentials.
Is TrueVault able to deliver these three basic requirements?
If the answer to this is "No" I would recommend you update this text on your website as there are not going to me any viable HIPPA compliment applications that can be supported by TrueVault without an independent server side interface.
I'm currently using AWS Lambda as a solution. Lambda is HIPPA compliant, more info here. Lambda is also a low cost solution.
Here is an example of the code I'm running on Lambda using Node.js.
var request = require('request-promise');
var _ = require('lodash');
function encodeBase64(str) {
return (new Buffer(str)).toString('base64');
}
var baseUrl = 'https://api.truevault.com/v1/';
var headers = {
'Content-Type': 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded;charset=utf-8'
};
var req = request.defaults({
baseUrl: baseUrl,
headers: _.extend({
Authorization: 'Basic ' + encodeBase64('your api key:')
}, headers),
transform: function(body) {
return JSON.parse(body);
}
});
exports.handler = function(event, context) {
req.post('users', {
form: {
username: event.email,
password: event.password,
attributes: encodeBase64(JSON.stringify({
name: event.name
}))
}
}).then(function() {
context.succeed({user: user});
}).catch(context.fail);
}
In general, you are correct - if you include zero server-side processing between user and TrueVault, then the API keys will be public. At least, I don't know of any way to avoid this.
That being said, it is incorrect to jump to "any API_KEY provides full access to all data vaults and JSON documents stored in TrueVault." - that's not the case if setup properly.
TrueVault API keys are able to be narrowed in scope quite a lot. Limiting a key to only Write permission on {Vault#1}, a second key to only Read permission on {Vault#2}, a third key to allow uploading Blogs in {Vault#1}, quite a few variations, a forth for deleting information from {Vault#2}, and on as needed. You can also limit permissions specifically to content "owned" by the API key (e.g. user-specific keys) Full documentation here.
There are also limited scope keys (set expiry time, usage count, limit to any of the prior permission scopes). Docs here.
TrueVault also offers user logins separate from API keys which may be better suited if your user are using login credentials. Docs here.
I'm still rather figuring out TrueVault myself (at time of writing at least) so be sure to research and review more for your needs. I'm still torn if the limited scoping is "good enough" for my needs - I'm leaning towards using AWS Lambda (or similar) to be a HIPAA compliant middle man, if only to better hide my access token generation and hide that my data is going to TrueVault and add some "serverless-server-side" data validation of sorts.
I'm looking for sample script that resets the default permissions on an external spreadsheet based on the email address and DocumentID passed to the script. I intent to create a script that can parse information from an email message to acquire the DocumentID and email, execute the permission change from default to anyone with a link, then email the passed address with that link.
It appears that perms are controlled by the DocList API and I'm not finding samples of GAS interacting with that API.
At Google I/O 2013, DriveApp was launched. This allows developers to build use cases like Sharing to Anyone with link
https://developers.google.com/apps-script/reference/drive/
Sample code -
var quizTemplate = DriveApp.getFileById(QUIZ_TEMPLATE_ID);
quizTemplate.setSharing(DriveApp.Access.DOMAIN_WITH_LINK, DriveApp.Permission.VIEW);
or
var openFile = DriveApp.getFileById(WIDE_OPEN_ID)
openFile.setSharing(DriveApp.Access.ANYONE_WITH_LINK, DriveApp.Permission.COMMENT);
AFAIK DocsList Services does not have a function to change the sharing mode, between private/anyone with a link/public, only to add/remove editors and viewers. But we can still achieve this by previously setting manually the share settings of a specific folder to "anyone with a link". Then, we have just to add the file to that folder to have it shared.
A script to do that is particularly simple. e.g.
function shareWithAnyoneAndEmail(documentID,email) {
var sharedFolder = DocsList.getFolderById('id-to-your-previously-shared-folder');
var file = DocsList.getFileById(documentID);
file.addToFolder(sharedFolder);
MailApp.sendEmail(email, 'Here is your file', file.getName()+'\n'+file.getUrl());
}
I'm trying to get details of Foursquare list by PHP library:
$foursquare = new FoursquareAPI($key,$secret);
$list = $foursquare->GetPublic('lists/'.$listId);
But everytime gets this error:
string(7672) "{"meta":{"code":200,"errorType":"deprecated","errorDetail":"Please provide an API version to avoid future errors.See https:\/\/developer.foursquare.co ... "
When I debug it, library calls this URL: https://api.foursquare.com/v2/lists/ with these params: Array ( [client_id] => <client_id> [client_secret] => <client_secret> )
But when I try this API method in Foursquare API Explorer I see that, this URL is calling: OAuth token automatically added. https://api.foursquare.com/v2/lists/<list_id>?oauth_token=<token>&v=20111205.
In lists doc is Requires Acting User: No, so I'm confused. Is it possible to call this function without authenticating user?
It would be nice, because I want to add places from my list (favourite restaurants) to my page on Google map in Contacts. It would be useful for our clients.
The error you are seeing is unrelated to the list endpoint you are requesting or the state of authentication. It is a warning that the library you are using is currently not following versioning best practice for Foursquare. You can read more about it here.
As for the list there should be a response object at the same level as the meta object.