Start a new topic

Control Sonoff without Internet


maybe this is a wellknown question:

can I control my sonoff device (Sonoff - ITEAD WiFi Wireless Smart Switch Module ABS Shell Socket for Home DIY, ebay nr.: 272301663052) without any internet connection?

Just with wget commands or similar?



19 people like this idea

Not without flashing your device with different firmware.

iTead could avoid a lot of hassle if they told us what to use for http commands post/get.......

I guess they're afraid of losing a customer base.

The fact is they would gain far more then they lost.

Not everyone is comfortable with flashing their devices.

6 people like this

Sorry for stepping in here when my expertise is Nextion and not Sonoff.


Yes, It is possible to run without external Internet, that is a more advanced series of hacks. The chip is an ESP 8266 that follows the same rules as all ESPs. Your capabilities will be limited to what you can program it for.


What do you mean by not everyone is comfortable with flashing their devices? In the embedded world, "flashing" is what is required to program an MCU. If you want a customization, you program it (ESP8266 is even Arduino Friendly), for the capabilities you want, and yes, you must upload your program - "flash it".  Arduino is not the only available compiler that one can use, and each has their setbacks and benefits - this is a user choice.

The ESP8266 is well documented and has a very large community,  the RFCs provide the Internet standards for how to post and get using http. Arduino provides a programming platform to write your customizations.

But surely no one will do this customization work for you. This is something that should only be done by those that have invested the time to learn the ESP8266, the internet and networking protocols, the programming language they have chosen, and the tools that they will use.  Without such experience, one is destined to fail.

The platform and firmware Itead provides allows users without this knowledge and skills to use the Sonoff products in a nice manner and enjoy their product without needing such years of learning. 

It would be in poor taste to blame their platform choices because a lack of skillz.

1 person likes this

@Patrick  Martin,

I don't want a customized program. If I did I'd make it.

When I first got my Sonoff it was never stated I needed to create my own custom interface to get simple local control. Nor was it advertised as a DIY project board as the device Frank points too. Nor was it stated I would have to flash the device and use additional hardware in order to get local control.

I don't blame iTead for their platform choice and users looking for this aren't asking iTead to change their app.

The Sonoff gets from the server a simple request to turn on or off, that's all the info in most cases that is wanted.

3 people like this

You are right, it is not advertised as a DIY project.

When I check pages to select for purchase it states control through iOS/Android via the App eWeLink.

So the fact it uses the eWeLink App is well stated before purchase.

It is therefore this Itead firmware and functionality that is purchased.

Asking for local control as Feature Request is valid - as a Feature Request.

The developers would assess these requests and decide on.  Users would wait a decision.

But you brought much more into this conversation than the mere Feature Request.

And when you brought in flashing another firmware, this then does become a DIY project.

Such other software is written by the user themselves or someone else,

but I assume it removes Itead support as such other software is not the Itead software.

But how is the product Frank points to not advertised as DIY when DIY is in the title?

I can not find anywhere advertised where local control was offered as a feature

- is there somewhere I missed this?

I will regress at this point.

I would recommend perhaps staying on the approach for local access as a Feature Request

and patiently waiting the decision of the developers to implement it or not.

Those who desire it before such a decision favours including local control will know that it can and has been done, but will require much reading to become familiar with the material needed to make it so.

I guess, if the commands were only a simple get or post via unencrypted http (and not https etc.) then it would be very easy to just sniff these simple commands (with Wireshark) and the answer to my question could be found often in this forum or others.
But the command is done most likely in some encrypted way, so it could be very difficult or just impossible to find it as iTead doesn't want to release that information to the user (which is now obvious to me, by which reason ever).
And as I have not the time to test this (sniff etc.) and as I think others had tried anyway and in vain, I just use sonoff "as it is" - like Google "use it as it is or just don't use it, it is not to discuss" ;)
After all sonoff is very cheap and very fast to use.

2 people like this


I am certain that "easy" and unencrypted communications should not desirable for home automation in such an age of hacking via the Internet.  Some form of authentication should be most desired to ensure only you as owner is in control of your household appliances.  I could think of many scenarios where an unencrypted access could lead to many undesired and perhaps even dangerous situations (dependent to what is being controlled).

As I specialize in Nextion and not Sonoff (as clearly stated above), my opinions stated here should not be interpreted as which directions or intentions that Itead or the Sonoff team has.  I am not privy to their intentions.  I was merely pointing out that local control can and has been achieved by some, and some considerations to make before embarking to do so.

I never said Frank pointed to a non DIY product it was clearly stated in his OP it was. Thus my OP stating the need for flashing. Sorry if my response to you Patrick, wasn't worded more clearly, It is obvious it wasn't. 

So this circles back to the question I asked earlier.

Was there ever somewhere it was advertised that local control was a feature?

 - have I missed this aspect somewhere?

@Patrick Martin
The security is my most concern, why I want to control the device only in my own LAN.
If the chinese control server would be my own server I would not think about it. But a server with uncontrollable data exchange which has even my WiFi access is a kind of an unsecure thing. I would prefer that I don't need to open my local network to some unknown service.
This is my main concern.


2 people like this

Frank pointed to a Ebay page which in turn says see their wiki for more details which states "As long as the mobile has network, users can remotely control the appliances from anywhere at any time."

It doesn't state as long as the mobile has internet.

It doesn't state it was a feature nor does it say it isn't thus probably the confusion, which is most likely why Frank posted the question.

I also never said, it was stated as a feature.

In any case I'm sure Franks OP question has been answer by you (Patrick) in far great detail than I did.

@frank - the control server is Amazon AWS.  I may be mistaken, but I believe that makes it an American control server/servers cloud service.  Amazons authentication and security measures are certainly not deemed to be weak by any stretch - but are subject to the services and how the app is programmed.  Amazon would certainly have security front of mind, considering their business.

@tuicemen - really?  Mobile has network refers to cellular network - please inform me of any carrier that does not connect to the internet.  You statement further enforces the path you should take to gain local control should be through a feature request and wait for such feature to be accepted and implemented.

I will once again regress.

Yes your right ! Last time I checked this thread was in the feature request section.

My eyes are failing me  so sometimes I guess I miss read things.

Also  Frank, I'm sorry if I supplied the wrong info!

Asking for local control as Feature Request is valid - as a Feature Request.

They will for sure review this as a request, so, we only must now wait.

Login or Signup to post a comment