Communicate with the device on a computer that cannot install drivers due to admin restrictions?
I was able to do this with FTDI drivers, but the arduino "drivers" that I can see appear to be just libusb.
If I include libusb as part of my program and use those functions will I be able to communicate with the device without making any installations?
The end goal is that I want this device or device(s) made from these arduinos (im using the micro in particular, but we have UNOs and other such ones laying around) to be portable with software that I can load onto any user's laptop without having to install drivers on their admin-restricted company computer - with the knowledge that the device itself will be pre-programmed already. I've seen a lot of people having this same issue so I think there is benefit to doing this if it can be done.
Well, my understanding is that libusb is portable to any OS, but our admin-restricted company computers are clearly windows Right now I'm mainly just trying to figure out if this is even possible.
JPlanck:
I can load onto any user's laptop without having to install drivers on their admin-restricted company computer - with the knowledge that the device itself will be pre-programmed already. I've seen a lot of people having this same issue so I think there is benefit to doing this if it can be done.
If the company restricts people from installing drivers\software on their users PCs, there is probably a very good reason for it.
So what is the 'benefit' of trying to subvert these restrictions ?
And if you have a valid reason for installing these drivers what is the problem with approaching the company and getting the appropriate permissions ?
srnet:
If the company restricts people from installing drivers\software on their users PCs, there is probably a very good reason for it.
So what is the 'benefit' of trying to subvert these restrictions ?
And if you have a valid reason for installing these drivers what is the problem with approaching the company and getting the appropriate permissions ?
"Circumventing" would be installing software without the necessary admin permissions, the intention here is to avoid having to do that, not to circumvent the system.
Our IT is notoriously slow for anything other than major hardware breakdowns. For example, I have an open ticket for a software package install that has been open for 11 months that I could do myself with an admin password in 2 minutes.
I don't see any need to circumvent windows/IT security when the device could function just fine without doing that (if possible). It's not even reasonable to expect a new IT ticket to install software every time a new person wants to use this device.
JPlanck:
"Circumventing" would be installing software without the necessary admin permissions, the intention here is to avoid having to do that, not to circumvent the system.
Maybe the IT folks don't want you to do whatever it is that you would like to do? Have you asked them?
Robin2:
Maybe the IT folks don't want you to do whatever it is that you would like to do? Have you asked them?
...R
They've already approved arduino software on my old laptop. I simply want to be able to do this without going through them every time I or anyone else gets a new laptop or a new user wants to try the device.
I actually don't see the reason this is relevant to begin with. I'm already running custom code on my laptop, and I'm already running custom code on the arduino that is already plugged into it. I'm adding a step of communicating between two devices that are already running custom code. In what way does adding the driver for facilitating this process add any security concern than isn't already existing by process of the custom code already running on either device? Frankly the entire idea sounds absurd to me.
In any case the goal is to be able to put drivers into the program and communicate without driver installation. Is this possible or is it not?
I (for one) do not like to help with projects if their purpose is to do something illegal or anti-social - hence my question.
...R
That's fine I respect that, but I don't see where the security concern is in the first place. If both components are already running custom code where is the security concern from allowing them to communicate?
Well anyway, I'm going to continue to try to do this. I feel like these could see some use here if everyone didn't have to go to IT to use them, IT is basically a 2 month roadblock at a minimum just to install a potentially needless driver and most people just want to try it out
The trick in any organization is to cultivate the contacts and relationships with the managers who have the authority to sort out problems - in this case that may mean the managers to whom the IT people report.
Right now I'm mainly just trying to figure out if this is even possible.
