Re: is there any way to wirelessly detect a cell phone's model number?

FYI, someone just told me that it is possible via Bluetooth if activated,
but only if the two devices are
paired. He said to use the command "AT+CGMI" (manufacturer) and "AT+CGMM"
(model) via an SPP (Serial Port Profile) session.

This seems perfect if AT commands are supported by all cell phones with
basic Bluetooth capabilities (e.g., Bluetooth headset only); however, it is
still very unclear to me if AT commands are guaranteed to be supported.
Does anyone know anything about this?

Thanks again,
Isaac


"Isaac" <groups@sonic.net> wrote in message news:...
> Chris, this is very interesting. The thought had crossed my since I see
> full user IP and OS/browser configuration info at the bottom of form mail
> submissions off websites.
>
> I did a quick search on this and quick found that info for the
> mini-browser at:
> http://www.zytrax.com/tech/web/mobile_ids.html
>
> They call that a "Mobile Browser ID (User-Agent) Strings".
>
> Now that you have confirmed it is possible, I need to find out if it
> actually and practically doable.
>
> Unfortunately, I did not have any luck yet finding developer level info on
> Bluetooth protocol/stack . Bluetooth.org requires a high level corporate
> membership to get access to the Bluetooth specification.
>
> Do you have any tips on how I might find at least top level info that
> confirms Bluetooth can do it in general, and then icing on the cake would
> be to know if all cell phones (esp. those w/o Internet capability)
> implement it even if it is in the general specification.
>
> Thanks a bunch!
> Isaac
>
>
> "Chris Blunt" <mail@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:1b4sm55u44nvdivoitms2biv88fu51dpe1@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 17:50:06 -0500, "Richard B. Gilbert"
>> <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:M_-dnTFjv9OQVvDWnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>> Isaac wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone know if there is a way to wirelessly (esp. in close
>>>>>> proximity) get/read a cell
>>>>>> phone's model number; e.g., maybe like by using Bluetooth, etc? I
>>>>>> need
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> find a way to do this so any ideas or helpful pointers would be
>>>>>> greatly
>>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TIA,
>>>>>> Isaac
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm inclined to doubt it! Why would anyone need the model of someone
>>>>> else's phone?? Why would the manufacturer build such a capability
>>>>> into
>>>>> the phone? How could he justify the cost of doing so?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you should start with the problem you are trying to solve!!
>>>>
>>>> Imagine someone is a pickpocket.
>>>>
>>>> Imagine someone wants to steal high value mobile phones (or the well
>>>> filled
>>>> wallets of those carrying them).
>>>>
>>>> Imagine why being able to detect such phones would give such a person
>>>> an
>>>> advantage...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, that's a good reason NOT to give phones the ability to identify
>>>themselves to strangers. Since, AFAIK, no cell phone has this
>>>capability, perhaps this was thought of long ago.
>>
>>
>> I believe that a phone reveals its model number to a web site when it
>> connects via its mini-browser, so it not totally implausible.that it
>> may do something similar via Bluetooth.
>>
>> Chris
>
>

Scott in SoCal wrote:
> Last time on alt.cellular.attws, "Isaac" <groups@sonic.net> said:
>
>> FYI, someone just told me that it is possible via Bluetooth if activated,
>> but only if the two devices are
>> paired. He said to use the command "AT+CGMI" (manufacturer) and "AT+CGMM"
>> (model) via an SPP (Serial Port Profile) session.
>>
>> This seems perfect if AT commands are supported by all cell phones with
>> basic Bluetooth capabilities (e.g., Bluetooth headset only); however, it is
>> still very unclear to me if AT commands are guaranteed to be supported.
>> Does anyone know anything about this?
>
> Sorry to shoot down your script kiddie fantasy, Isaac, but unless you
> can pair with the phone you probably won't be able to establish that
> SPP session. And you can't pair with the phone unless you punch in the
> PIN on the phone's keypad.
>
> Since you'll have the phone in your hand to punch in the PIN, it would
> be faster to just look at the model number printed on the front panel
> of the phone.

IF, and ONLY IF, the model number IS printed on the front panel of the
phone. Mine is not. You have to remove the back cover and the battery
to find the V3M

I think it's also displayed on the box AND in the instruction book!
It's certainly not too difficult for most people to find.

I suppose that there are people who walk into the store and simply grab
the lowest priced model they can find. Certainly there are also a few
who buy the most expensive just to show off!

"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Fs6dncy_4qIDfe_WnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> Scott in SoCal wrote:
>> Last time on alt.cellular.attws, "Isaac" <groups@sonic.net> said:
>>
>>> FYI, someone just told me that it is possible via Bluetooth if
>>> activated, but only if the two devices are
>>> paired. He said to use the command "AT+CGMI" (manufacturer) and
>>> "AT+CGMM" (model) via an SPP (Serial Port Profile) session.
>>>
>>> This seems perfect if AT commands are supported by all cell phones with
>>> basic Bluetooth capabilities (e.g., Bluetooth headset only); however, it
>>> is still very unclear to me if AT commands are guaranteed to be
>>> supported. Does anyone know anything about this?
>>
>> Sorry to shoot down your script kiddie fantasy, Isaac, but unless you
>> can pair with the phone you probably won't be able to establish that
>> SPP session. And you can't pair with the phone unless you punch in the
>> PIN on the phone's keypad.
>>
>> Since you'll have the phone in your hand to punch in the PIN, it would
>> be faster to just look at the model number printed on the front panel
>> of the phone.
>
> IF, and ONLY IF, the model number IS printed on the front panel of the
> phone. Mine is not. You have to remove the back cover and the battery
> to find the V3M
>
> I think it's also displayed on the box AND in the instruction book! It's
> certainly not too difficult for most people to find.

Actually, it is even much harder than that, in general. I have an old
(2007) Moto smartphone (looks like a blackberry style) and I cannot find the
model number anywhere, even if I pull off the back pannel and battery. So,
in general, the app I'm writing cannot rely on the user knowing their model
number, and I certainly cannot expect them (in my particular context) to
pull off their battery even if it was hidden there. It would be helpul if
their were an easy manual method for the user to *always* easily be able to
find there model number of there phone- on the spot, while out-and-about.
That way, if my automatic detection failed, then I could prompt them to
ender it manually.


>
> I suppose that there are people who walk into the store and simply grab
> the lowest priced model they can find. Certainly there are also a few who
> buy the most expensive just to show off!

"Scott in SoCal" <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3mj4n5hsdpm7ojl7ml5qnuvtjis1koc3ph@4ax.com...
> Last time on alt.cellular.attws, "Isaac" <groups@sonic.net> said:
>
>>FYI, someone just told me that it is possible via Bluetooth if activated,
>>but only if the two devices are
>>paired. He said to use the command "AT+CGMI" (manufacturer) and "AT+CGMM"
>>(model) via an SPP (Serial Port Profile) session.
>>
>>This seems perfect if AT commands are supported by all cell phones with
>>basic Bluetooth capabilities (e.g., Bluetooth headset only); however, it
>>is
>>still very unclear to me if AT commands are guaranteed to be supported.
>>Does anyone know anything about this?
>
> Sorry to shoot down your script kiddie fantasy, Isaac, but unless you
> can pair with the phone you probably won't be able to establish that
> SPP session. And you can't pair with the phone unless you punch in the
> PIN on the phone's keypad.
>
Unfortunately, you are correct, as I later discover. Pairing is not an
option, unfortunately, to initial users of my app. However, it seems there
is still a way. From what I have learned, if a phone is in "discoverable
mode", then there are a couple things I can retrieve to get the model
number. Firstly, if the user has not changed the device name, then the
default name is the make/model of the phone. I understand about half the
time people leave it as the default. Secondly, the MAC address has a base
code (usually 4 hex digits in the middle) that is unique to the phone's
model number. The problem with the later approach is that every time a new
model come out, I'd have to find out what its base code it, which seems like
an endlessly daunting task considering how often models are release. If the
manufacturer released that info then it would be pretty robust.

> Since you'll have the phone in your hand to punch in the PIN, it would
> be faster to just look at the model number printed on the front panel
> of the phone.
The app I'm coding is not to autodetect my own phone's model, of course- why
would I go through the trouble.

Thanks,
Isaac

On Feb 11, 1:29*am, "Isaac" <gro...@sonic.net> wrote:
> "Scott in SoCal" <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:3mj4n5hsdpm7ojl7ml5qnuvtjis1koc3ph@4ax .com...
>
> > Last time on alt.cellular.attws, "Isaac" <gro...@sonic.net> said:
>
> >>FYI, someone just told me that it is possible via Bluetooth if activated,
> >>but only if the two devices are
> >>paired. *He said to use the command "AT+CGMI" (manufacturer) and "AT+CGMM"
> >>(model) via an SPP (Serial Port Profile) session.
>
> >>This seems perfect if AT commands are supported by all cell phones with
> >>basic Bluetooth capabilities (e.g., Bluetooth headset only); however, it
> >>is
> >>still very unclear to me if AT commands are guaranteed to be supported.
> >>Does anyone know anything about this?
>
> > Sorry to shoot down your script kiddie fantasy, Isaac, but unless you
> > can pair with the phone you probably won't be able to establish that
> > SPP session. And you can't pair with the phone unless you punch in the
> > PIN on the phone's keypad.
>
> Unfortunately, you are correct, as I later discover. *Pairing is not an
> option, unfortunately, to initial users of my app. *However, it seems there
> is still a way. *From what I have learned, if a phone is in "discoverable
> mode", then there are a couple things I can retrieve to get the model
> number. *Firstly, if the user has not changed the device name, then the
> default name is the make/model of the phone. *I understand about half the
> time people leave it as the default. *Secondly, the MAC address has a base
> code (usually 4 hex digits in the middle) *that is unique to the phone's
> model number. *The problem with the later approach is that every time anew
> model come out, I'd have to find out what its base code it, which seems like
> an endlessly daunting task considering how often models are release. *If the
> manufacturer released that info then it would be pretty robust.
>
> > Since you'll have the phone in your hand to punch in the PIN, it would
> > be faster to just look at the model number printed on the front panel
> > of the phone.
>
> The app I'm coding is not to autodetect my own phone's model, of course- why
> would I go through the trouble.
>
> Thanks,
> Isaac

As a matter of prudence, most people do not leave their bluetooth-
capable phones in "discoverable" mode. I know that I certainly don't!

In message
<19c5e61d-1234-4a54-95b2-9a48935d79dc@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com> Russ
in San Diego <russgoog@gmail.com> was claimed to have wrote:

>As a matter of prudence, most people do not leave their bluetooth-
>capable phones in "discoverable" mode. I know that I certainly don't!

It really depends on what the goal is here... If you have a user's
cooperation, turning on BT probably isn't a big deal.

If not, the OP should probably go do something beneficial to society.

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:03:43 -0800, DevilsPGD
<Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage@crazyhat.net> wrote in
<kv1an5l9hke7gpfr8k2ovbb3h46iuhbh6v@4ax.com>:

>In message
><19c5e61d-1234-4a54-95b2-9a48935d79dc@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com> Russ
>in San Diego <russgoog@gmail.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>As a matter of prudence, most people do not leave their bluetooth-
>>capable phones in "discoverable" mode. I know that I certainly don't!

Likewise.

>It really depends on what the goal is here... If you have a user's
>cooperation, turning on BT probably isn't a big deal.

On and Discoverable are two different things --
BT can be On but not Discoverable.

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

"Russ in San Diego" <russgoog@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:19c5e61d-1234-4a54-95b2-9a48935d79dc@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 11, 1:29 am, "Isaac" <gro...@sonic.net> wrote:
> "Scott in SoCal" <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> messagenews:3mj4n5hsdpm7ojl7ml5qnuvtjis1koc3ph@4ax .com...
>
<snip>
> Unfortunately, you are correct, as I later discover. Pairing is not an
> option, unfortunately, to initial users of my app. However, it seems there
> is still a way. From what I have learned, if a phone is in "discoverable
> mode", then there are a couple things I can retrieve to get the model

<snip>
>As a matter of prudence, most people do not leave their bluetooth-
>capable phones in "discoverable" mode. I know that I certainly don't!

is "discoverable" mode the only way to get the Bluetooth name and/or
address? Is there a way to have the destination phone not be discoverable,
but receive inquiry requests and be prompted to OK providing an inquiry
response? Of course, the BT radio would have to be turned on.

Thanks,
Isaac

"DevilsPGD" <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:kv1an5l9hke7gpfr8k2ovbb3h46iuhbh6v@4ax.com...
> In message
> <19c5e61d-1234-4a54-95b2-9a48935d79dc@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com> Russ
> in San Diego <russgoog@gmail.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>As a matter of prudence, most people do not leave their bluetooth-
>>capable phones in "discoverable" mode. I know that I certainly don't!
>
> It really depends on what the goal is here... If you have a user's
> cooperation, turning on BT probably isn't a big deal.

Yes, my app would have user cooperation; however, there can be no pairing
b/c they would not want to completely open up their system for security
issues even if they generally trusted my app, but they would certainly OK
any inquiry or discovery modes if it was real easy to do. I have to assume
they have no knowledge of their phone or BT, so it would have to be an
extreme "no brainer" to do.

BTW, are all phones sold configured with BT radio turn on and in discovery
mode by default? If not, any idea what the norm is? If the default is that
it is enabled, then they would have had to know how it works to turn it off,
and thus back on- so that can help if true.

thanks,
Isaac


>
> If not, the OP should probably go do something beneficial to society.

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:qhvan5p5t9rmgesl4hltpivt0aa457670t@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:03:43 -0800, DevilsPGD
> <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage@crazyhat.net> wrote in
> <kv1an5l9hke7gpfr8k2ovbb3h46iuhbh6v@4ax.com>:
>
>>In message
>><19c5e61d-1234-4a54-95b2-9a48935d79dc@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com> Russ
>>in San Diego <russgoog@gmail.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>>
>>>As a matter of prudence, most people do not leave their bluetooth-
>>>capable phones in "discoverable" mode. I know that I certainly don't!
>
> Likewise.
>
>>It really depends on what the goal is here... If you have a user's
>>cooperation, turning on BT probably isn't a big deal.
>
> On and Discoverable are two different things --
> BT can be On but not Discoverable.


Yes, but I'm a little confused here. If the BT radio is turned on, but
"discoverable" mode is off, is there a way to have the destination phone not
be discoverable, but otherwise receive inquiry requests and be prompted to
OK providing an inquiry
response?

From another angle, without pairing I know I cannot do any AT Commands (like
"AT+CGMI" (manufacturer) and "AT+CGMM" (model)), which I understand need a
Serial Port service (SPS) or the Dial-Up Networking service (DUNS).
However, I am not clear on what info exact info is available on demand and
under what conditions. Any top-level help on this would be greatly
appreciated.

My current understanding is that if my app initiates an Inquiry Procedure,
the only way that a destination BT device will *automatically* provide an
inquiry reply is if the BT device is in "discoverable" mode. If my app does
get an inquiry reply, then both BT devices can begin the Paging Procedure,
by which an actual connection can be established thereby the source BT
device is the master and the destination device is the slave- creating a
Piconet. Now, it seems to me that at this point the master can make
inquiries of various device technical information which should include phone
make/model info (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetoo...up_connections "Technical
information (for example: device features, manufacturer, Bluetooth
specification used, clock offset)" ). If so, then my app can get the
make/model #s so long as the BT device is discoverable.

Is this how it works? If not, please correct me.

Thanks,
Isaac

>
> --
> Best regards,
> John <http:/navasgroup.com>
>
> If the iPhone is really so impressive,
> why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:06:58 -0800, "Isaac" <groups@sonic.net> wrote in
<4b75a6d5$0$1948$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>"Russ in San Diego" <russgoog@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:19c5e61d-1234-4a54-95b2-9a48935d79dc@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

>>As a matter of prudence, most people do not leave their bluetooth-
>>capable phones in "discoverable" mode. I know that I certainly don't!
>
>is "discoverable" mode the only way to get the Bluetooth name and/or
>address? Is there a way to have the destination phone not be discoverable,
>but receive inquiry requests and be prompted to OK providing an inquiry
>response? Of course, the BT radio would have to be turned on.

BT works fine with paired devices when the radio is On whether Discovery
(Visibility) is turned On or Off.

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:23:54 -0800, "Isaac" <groups@sonic.net> wrote in
<4b75aacd$0$1948$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:qhvan5p5t9rmgesl4hltpivt0aa457670t@4ax.com.. .

>> On and Discoverable are two different things --
>> BT can be On but not Discoverable.
>
>Yes, but I'm a little confused here. If the BT radio is turned on, but
>"discoverable" mode is off, is there a way to have the destination phone not
>be discoverable, but otherwise receive inquiry requests and be prompted to
>OK providing an inquiry
>response?

Paired devices work fine with Discovery (Visibility) turned Off.
A non-paired device can see signaling between paired devices,
but won't get any response, and can't decode the traffic.

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

In message <qhvan5p5t9rmgesl4hltpivt0aa457670t@4ax.com> John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> was claimed to have wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:03:43 -0800, DevilsPGD
><Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage@crazyhat.net> wrote in
><kv1an5l9hke7gpfr8k2ovbb3h46iuhbh6v@4ax.com>:
>
>>It really depends on what the goal is here... If you have a user's
>>cooperation, turning on BT probably isn't a big deal.
>
>On and Discoverable are two different things --
>BT can be On but not Discoverable.

I know -- But if you have the user's cooperation and just can't easily
figure out the model number despite looking at the phone, turning on
Discoverable mode is fairly trivial.

"DevilsPGD" <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:1ogbn5dvf2eak1kqvq1064ofitjkmb2pia@4ax.com...
> In message <qhvan5p5t9rmgesl4hltpivt0aa457670t@4ax.com> John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:03:43 -0800, DevilsPGD
>><Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage@crazyhat.net> wrote in
>><kv1an5l9hke7gpfr8k2ovbb3h46iuhbh6v@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>It really depends on what the goal is here... If you have a user's
>>>cooperation, turning on BT probably isn't a big deal.
>>
>>On and Discoverable are two different things --
>>BT can be On but not Discoverable.
>
> I know -- But if you have the user's cooperation and just can't easily
> figure out the model number despite looking at the phone, turning on
> Discoverable mode is fairly trivial.

BTW, the model number is not easy to figure out on all phones. I have an
old AT&T Moto (~2005) Smartphone (looks like a blackberry style) that I
cannot find the model number on anywhere. I even pulled off the battery it
is not marked in any obvious, accessible place. I've heard other phones
have this problem too. So, I have to assume the user does not, or cannot
easily, know their model number.

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:b3bbn5534icit08l5re5scn3eqn244iids@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:06:58 -0800, "Isaac" <groups@sonic.net> wrote in
> <4b75a6d5$0$1948$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>"Russ in San Diego" <russgoog@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:19c5e61d-1234-4a54-95b2-9a48935d79dc@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>As a matter of prudence, most people do not leave their bluetooth-
>>>capable phones in "discoverable" mode. I know that I certainly don't!
>>
>>is "discoverable" mode the only way to get the Bluetooth name and/or
>>address? Is there a way to have the destination phone not be
>>discoverable,
>>but receive inquiry requests and be prompted to OK providing an inquiry
>>response? Of course, the BT radio would have to be turned on.
>
> BT works fine with paired devices when the radio is On whether Discovery
> (Visibility) is turned On or Off.
>

Sorry, I should have also said that pairing devices is not an option in my
app. Generally, the users would OK anything else my app might prompt or
do, except for pairing.

I am confused about another related issue here. That is, what BT address
exactly does the source need to know to establish a connection to a
destination BT device if "discoverable" mode is turned off. For example,
under Device Discovery, when a BT destination device is discoverable it will
provide its unique 48-bit Bluetooth Device Address and technical information
in response to an inquiry. Lets say the BT source device saved this BT
address, and later the BT destination turns off its discoverable mode. Can
the source still establish a connection to this destination (within range,
of course), or is there another address? I know there are other addresses,
but it is unclear which is needed to connect to an un-discoverable BT
destination. Other addresses include, "Active Member Address", "Access
Request Address", "MAC Address", and "Parked Member Address".

Another related question is what address does the source have to know/use to
address a paired destination, which is not in discoverable mode. It seems
like this may be a different address than that used in the paging procedure
to establish a master/slave inquiry connection.

Thanks,
Isaac






> --
> Best regards,
> John <http:/navasgroup.com>
>
> If the iPhone is really so impressive,
> why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:a7bbn5pt9k5nacu6v86kh740uj3hpgeeor@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:23:54 -0800, "Isaac" <groups@sonic.net> wrote in
> <4b75aacd$0$1948$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:qhvan5p5t9rmgesl4hltpivt0aa457670t@4ax.com. ..
>
>>> On and Discoverable are two different things --
>>> BT can be On but not Discoverable.
>>
>>Yes, but I'm a little confused here. If the BT radio is turned on, but
>>"discoverable" mode is off, is there a way to have the destination phone
>>not
>>be discoverable, but otherwise receive inquiry requests and be prompted to
>>OK providing an inquiry
>>response?
>
> Paired devices work fine with Discovery (Visibility) turned Off.
> A non-paired device can see signaling between paired devices,
> but won't get any response, and can't decode the traffic.
>

interesting. When you say "non-paired device can see signaling" what does
that mean? Can it see things like the BT names & addresses of the pared
devices?


> --
> Best regards,
> John <http:/navasgroup.com>
>
> If the iPhone is really so impressive,
> why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:09:06 -0800, "Isaac" <groups@sonic.net> wrote in
<4b75fbb5$0$1997$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:a7bbn5pt9k5nacu6v86kh740uj3hpgeeor@4ax.com.. .

>> Paired devices work fine with Discovery (Visibility) turned Off.
>> A non-paired device can see signaling between paired devices,
>> but won't get any response, and can't decode the traffic.
>
>interesting. When you say "non-paired device can see signaling" what does
>that mean? Can it see things like the BT names & addresses of the pared
>devices?

It sees MAC addresses and encrypted radio transmissions.

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:33:40 -0800, "Isaac" <groups@sonic.net> wrote in
<4b75e557$0$2021$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>I am confused about another related issue here. That is, what BT address
>exactly does the source need to know to establish a connection to a
>destination BT device if "discoverable" mode is turned off.

You cannot connect to a BT device that's not in Discoverable mode to
which you are not paired -- it will simply ignore you.

>Another related question is what address does the source have to know/use to
>address a paired destination, which is not in discoverable mode. ...

The MAC address.

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

In article <kmsdn5dqrulur7qh1s13mpgk096ipbcvcs@navasgroup.com >, John
Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> You cannot connect to a BT device that's not in Discoverable mode to
> which you are not paired -- it will simply ignore you.

not true. apple's gamekit does peer to peer over bluetooth, no pairing
required.

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:djsdn5p482g4colhddajaafgp5924sftno@navasgroup .com...
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:09:06 -0800, "Isaac" <groups@sonic.net> wrote in
> <4b75fbb5$0$1997$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:a7bbn5pt9k5nacu6v86kh740uj3hpgeeor@4ax.com. ..
>
>>> Paired devices work fine with Discovery (Visibility) turned Off.
>>> A non-paired device can see signaling between paired devices,
>>> but won't get any response, and can't decode the traffic.
>>
>>interesting. When you say "non-paired device can see signaling" what does
>>that mean? Can it see things like the BT names & addresses of the pared
>>devices?
>
> It sees MAC addresses and encrypted radio transmissions.
>

So, if I understand you right, if two BT devices have discovery turned off,
their MAC addresses still show up on the BT network. I am not clear,
though, on MAC addresses. It seems that this term often gets used losely.
As defined at:
http://www.palowireless.com/infotooth/glossary.asp#MAC Address

It says: "MAC Address - 3-bit address to distinguish between units
participating in the piconet. Within Bluetooth, this is the AM_ADDR ".
However, I have seen others in the groups use "MAC address" in re the
Bluetooth Device Address:
http://www.palowireless.com/infotoot...ry.asp#BD_ADDR
"Each Bluetooth transceiver is allocated a unique 48-bit device address. It
is divided into a 24-bit LAP field, a 16-bit NAP field and a 8-bit UAP
field."

Which do you mean? If it is the 48 bit address then that is useful;
otherwise, not so much.

Thanks,
Isaac




> --
> Best regards,
> John <http:/navasgroup.com>
>
> If the iPhone is really so impressive,
> why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:kmsdn5dqrulur7qh1s13mpgk096ipbcvcs@navasgroup .com...
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:33:40 -0800, "Isaac" <groups@sonic.net> wrote in
> <4b75e557$0$2021$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>I am confused about another related issue here. That is, what BT address
>>exactly does the source need to know to establish a connection to a
>>destination BT device if "discoverable" mode is turned off.
>
> You cannot connect to a BT device that's not in Discoverable mode to
> which you are not paired -- it will simply ignore you.
>
>>Another related question is what address does the source have to know/use
>>to
>>address a paired destination, which is not in discoverable mode. ...
>
> The MAC address.
>

Your reply is curious here, because another post you say this MAC is
available on the network even if the pair devices are not discoverable. For
example, if I correctly understand what you are saying, then the following
scenario is possible: 1. get the 48-bit BT device address of
non-discoverable BT devices when they connect with paired BT devices, and 2.
Bluejack the acquired BT device address (i.e., send a message cloaked in the
form of a very long BT device name).

Also, once you get the 48-bit BT device address, even if non-discoverable,
can you still send over a business card that will be properly received?

Please clarify.
> --
> Best regards,
> John <http:/navasgroup.com>
>
> If the iPhone is really so impressive,
> why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:130220101147564490%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <kmsdn5dqrulur7qh1s13mpgk096ipbcvcs@navasgroup.com >, John
> Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> You cannot connect to a BT device that's not in Discoverable mode to
>> which you are not paired -- it will simply ignore you.
>
> not true. apple's gamekit does peer to peer over bluetooth, no pairing
> required.

I understand that any phones can do peer-to-peer, but is it only the apple
gamekit that does not require pairing or is this a more general fact that
most BT devices can do peer-to-peer w/o pairing. When no paring is done
first, do you happen to know the particular protocol used to achieve
peer-to-peer file sharing?

Also, are you saying that the peer BT devices need not be discoverable? How
do they find each other? Maybe they just remember the BT device address
from prior sessions.

thanks,
isaac

In article <4b790a09$0$1962$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Isaac
<groups@sonic.net> wrote:

> I understand that any phones can do peer-to-peer, but is it only the apple
> gamekit that does not require pairing or is this a more general fact that
> most BT devices can do peer-to-peer w/o pairing. When no paring is done
> first, do you happen to know the particular protocol used to achieve
> peer-to-peer file sharing?

gamekit is basically bonjour over bluetooth, which is how it can do
peer to peer without needing to pair or being discoverable. it won't
peer with a generic bluetooth device.

I see. I always hated that bonjour app on the PC. I don't know of a way to
get generic Bluetooth devices to do something like bonjour, so I guess this
is good to know, but does not help me detect a phones model number with the
user's cooperation, but w/o pairing.

thanks for the input, though.
Isaac

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:150220100100190660%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <4b790a09$0$1962$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Isaac
> <groups@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> I understand that any phones can do peer-to-peer, but is it only the
>> apple
>> gamekit that does not require pairing or is this a more general fact that
>> most BT devices can do peer-to-peer w/o pairing. When no paring is done
>> first, do you happen to know the particular protocol used to achieve
>> peer-to-peer file sharing?
>
> gamekit is basically bonjour over bluetooth, which is how it can do
> peer to peer without needing to pair or being discoverable. it won't
> peer with a generic bluetooth device.

You know, I thought about this some more and I'm confused on some details.
That is, as far as I understood, bonjour basically puts your PC's IP address
out on the internet to make it "discoverable", however, if your PC has a
firewall both the bonjour broadcast of your IP address and any responses
requesting connections are blocked. Isn't BT pairing much like a firewall?
So, it is not clear to me how a bonjour-like app running on the BT device
gets around the BT pairing "firewall", esp. wrt the incoming connection
request side of the equation. Can you clarify?

thanks,
Isaac

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:150220100100190660%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <4b790a09$0$1962$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Isaac
> <groups@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> I understand that any phones can do peer-to-peer, but is it only the
>> apple
>> gamekit that does not require pairing or is this a more general fact that
>> most BT devices can do peer-to-peer w/o pairing. When no paring is done
>> first, do you happen to know the particular protocol used to achieve
>> peer-to-peer file sharing?
>
> gamekit is basically bonjour over bluetooth, which is how it can do
> peer to peer without needing to pair or being discoverable. it won't
> peer with a generic bluetooth device.

In article <4b79a924$0$1954$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Isaac
<groups@sonic.net> wrote:

> So, it is not clear to me how a bonjour-like app running on the BT device
> gets around the BT pairing "firewall", esp. wrt the incoming connection
> request side of the equation. Can you clarify?

i'm not sure what they do at that level.