Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 10, 2024. It is now read-only.

Samsung KS8000 support? #18

Closed
nunofgs opened this issue Oct 9, 2016 · 4 comments
Closed

Samsung KS8000 support? #18

nunofgs opened this issue Oct 9, 2016 · 4 comments
Milestone

Comments

@nunofgs
Copy link
Contributor

nunofgs commented Oct 9, 2016

Hello, I have a KS8000 Samsung TV and have found that port 55000 is not open. Any ideas on how we could support my TV?

Here's a quick nmap of the running TV:

Host is up (0.010s latency).
Not shown: 994 closed ports
PORT     STATE SERVICE
7676/tcp open  imqbrokerd
8000/tcp open  http-alt
8001/tcp open  vcom-tunnel
8002/tcp open  teradataordbms
8080/tcp open  http-proxy
9999/tcp open  abyss
@kylerw
Copy link

kylerw commented Oct 9, 2016

Same question here!

@Ape
Copy link
Owner

Ape commented Oct 10, 2016

Try to run samsungctl on those ports and see if any of them work. But I think it's likely that KS8000 doesn't support the same remote control interface.

@nunofgs
Copy link
Contributor Author

nunofgs commented Oct 25, 2016

@kyleaa has gotten this to work on his homebridge-samsungtv2016 homebridge plugin. I've successfully tested this on my tv and it works great!

@Ape any chance you could add support for this on samsungctl?

@Ape
Copy link
Owner

Ape commented Oct 26, 2016

@nunofgs Thanks for the information. It seems that the control interface is very similar to the old one implemented in samsungctl. The difference is just that the new protocol uses websockets and json. It would be quite easy to provide an alternative implementation for samsungctl/remote.py.

I don't have the new kind of TV so I don't have the necessary motivation to implement this myself. However, I would gladly accept pull requests for this feature.

@Ape Ape added this to the 1.0.0 milestone Nov 14, 2016
@Ape Ape closed this as completed in #19 Dec 29, 2016
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants