communication intercept?

[mdgarf]

Hi,
did anyone tried intercept communication between fitbit -(html
internet)- webpage or fitbit - (bluetooth??) base of fitbit???

[Wade Simmons]

I haven't tried this, but it could lead to some interesting
information. Let us know if you try it!

--
Wade Simmons <wsim...@gmail.com>

[JonnyOTS]

From the fitbit forums...

The Fitbit uses ANT technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANT_(network)

more from a post by Allen, http://www.fitbit.com/forums/post/GN77LDH3MKHXJ/bluetooth

> Wade Simmons <wsimm...@gmail.com>

[John Kramlich]

I used CocoaPacketAnalyzer on MacOS X to monitor my TCP traffic and
put my fitbit on its base station. On MacOS X the fitbit daemon runs
from:

/usr/local/bin/fitbitd

It seems to listen on port 49617 for incoming data from the fitbit.
Then, it packages this data somehow and sends HTTP posts on port 80 to
a few different pages. Here are the URLs that POSTs were sent to, in
the following order:

client.fitbit.com:80/device/tracker/uploadData
client.fitbit.com:80/device/tracker/dumpData/lookupTracker
client.fitbit.com:80/device/tracker/dumpData/dumpData
client.fitbit.com:80/device/tracker/dumpData/clearDataConfigTracker

I'm going to try WireShark and see if I can reconstruct the HTTP
requests more easily and gather a bit more information.

[mdgarf]

ANT is bad, it is good choice for this application, but I was hoping
to eliminate base with mobile phone and get actual readings without
sync to the base. With bluetooth it might have been possible.
With HTTP posts only data can be added, but what data since you can
not get to fitbit (unit). OK for additional activities and food data
it might be useful.

I just hope all this will be covered with API, and we are just few
impatient programmers. Wait or go for it??
I am quite worried about fitbit opening up.

On Mar 16, 11:16 pm, John Kramlich <j...@manifestinteractive.com>
wrote: