|
Does anyone have any comments on my last posting ? 
Doug
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a way that I can have internet on both pc's?
I read something about using a "crossover cable" and an extra ethernet adapter in the original pc, but it seems to easy .
If this process is right, is there software needed, new drivers or a different "special" ethernet adapter?
Thanks
PS- If it makes any difference, I am using a seimens speedstream 4200 router.
"Shorter of breath,
and one day closer to death." ~Pink Floyd
|
|
|
|
|
Thisita wrote: I am using a seimens speedstream 4200 router.
That's not a router. It's a DSL modem. The two are very different.
You CAN do it using a couple of ethernet cards in one machine and Internet Connection Sharing, but that sucks.
You'd be better off getting an actual router and connecting both machines and the modem to the router.
|
|
|
|
|
Buy a cheap 10/100 switch (less than $20?).
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks guys, i guess i might as well go wireless, too.
*Pulls out extra $50 for wireless router*
"Shorter of breath,
and one day closer to death." ~Pink Floyd
|
|
|
|
|
Avoid wireless if you can. It's impossible to secure it.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed, the best way to get wireless working is to use Cat5e!
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: It's impossible to secure it.
'Splain please.
|
|
|
|
|
Restricting by MAC doesn't work as the MAC can easily be spoofed.
WEP can be cracked in seconds depending on the amount of traffic ... I'm not joking either, alot of work has been done on refining the tools for breaking into WEP 
WPA is a bit more secure if IIRC but it's still pretty vunerable, but thats not saying much and I think it can be done in minutes.
Do a search on WEP and WPA cracking.
|
|
|
|
|
originSH wrote: Restricting by MAC doesn't work as the MAC can easily be spoofed.
Correct
originSH wrote: WEP can be cracked in seconds depending on the amount of traffic
Maybe not seconds, but yes WEP is easily crackable. Some "progress" was made in this area recently that greatly reduces the time needed to get a WEP password.
originSH wrote: WPA is a bit more secure if IIRC but it's still pretty vunerable
Wrong. Listen to the Security Now[^] podcast, they have covered this topic.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Dunn wrote: originSH wrote:
WEP can be cracked in seconds depending on the amount of traffic
Maybe not seconds, but yes WEP is easily crackable. Some "progress" was made in this area recently that greatly reduces the time needed to get a WEP password.
A month or two back someone demonstrated a WEP crack that was able to bust most keys in a few seconds. It was fast enough to render the enterprisy rapid key rotation systems some companies were using instead of upgrading to WPA capable hardware ineffective.
--
You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Dunn wrote: Wrong.
I agree. I just went from WEP to WPA, and still do mac address filtering on top of that. Just my couple cents 
"Any sort of work in VB6 is bound to provide several WTF moments." - Christian Graus
|
|
|
|
|
- Thanks guys about the crack info, but I live in a town where the only other person who has wireless is the high school's mobile computer lab.
- And even If, I keep a good eye on what is able to get past my 7 firewalls and symantec.
"Shorter of breath,
and one day closer to death." ~Pink Floyd
|
|
|
|
|
Thisita wrote: 7 firewalls and symantec.
Symantec? Oh, you ARE screwed now! That thing couldn't stop the ages old Ping of Death. Google it if you don't know what that means.
Think of it this way. Are you absolutely sure you want to take the chance that some War Driver to pull up outside and use YOUR soon-to-be unprotected wireless to do "business" with their kiddie-porn buddies with YOUR IP address?
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
Please note that i live next to a decorated police officer and I myself own a full shirisaya sword set, a kasarigama(look it up), and 10 shyrukens.
~~I do believe these tend to ward off evil doers;P
And besides, there is no way that an 100 meter wireless
router can transmit that far inside of a desk drawer in the middle of 2500 square feet.
I live in the middle of nowhere and live withen 5 miles of cow pastures and tobacco feilds.
If this isn't enough to instead buy a 50 ft ethernet cord please let me know
-- modified at 13:07 Tuesday 17th July, 2007
PS: And the nearest WalMart is 25 miles!
"Shorter of breath,
and one day closer to death." ~Pink Floyd
|
|
|
|
|
Thisita wrote: Please note that i live next to a decorated police officer and I myself own a full shirisaya sword set, a kasarigama(look it up), and 10 shyrukens.
~~I do believe these tend to ward off evil doers
That's nowhere near as effective as a few feet of aluminum foil wrapped around the router antennas. 
|
|
|
|
|
Did I mention the trigger happpy old ladies who chased away homebuyers
I love small town America
"Shorter of breath,
and one day closer to death." ~Pink Floyd
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just curious and assuming it not a trade secret, how many servers does it take to run CP, aprroximately?
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
Internet colloquial[^]
Cheers,
Sebastian
--
"If it was two men, the non-driver would have challenged the driver to simply crash through the gates. The macho image thing, you know." - Marc Clifton
|
|
|
|
|
42
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
in my C# program(I mainliy use SerialPort class),I input "at" in a textBox,then the program send "at" to serial port(the other end of serial port is a modem which is connected to my computer by a data line),but when i click receive button,the message I receive from serial port is the same as what I input,namely "at",not "ok",why?who can answer my question?How I solve this problem and get the right response "ok" from serial port?
next is my code:
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
private SerialPort sp = null;
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
sp = new SerialPort("COM1");
sp.ReadTimeout = 5000;
sp.Open();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);
}
}
private void button2_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
sp.Write(textBox1.Text);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);
}
}
private void button3_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
/*string text=null;
char[] buffer = new char[10];
sp.Read(buffer,0,6);
for (int i = 0; i < buffer.Length; i++)
{
text += buffer[i];
}
textBox2.Text = text;*/
/*string text = null;
char t = (char)sp.ReadChar();
text+=t.ToString();
while (true)
{
t = (char)sp.ReadChar();
if (t == '\0') break;
else text += t.ToString();
}
textBox2.Text = text;*/
string text = null;
byte[] t = new byte[20];
char[] c = new char[20];
sp.Read(t, 0, t.Length);
sp.Read(t, 0, t.Length);
c = Encoding.ASCII.GetChars(t);
int i;
for (i = 0; i < c.Length; i++)
{
if (c[i] == 'O' || c[i] == 'K')
text += c[i].ToString();
}
textBox2.Text = text;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);
}
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
supercsharp1 wrote: but when i click receive button,the message I receive from serial port is the same as what I input,namely "at",not "ok",why?
Your modem probably has 'echo' switched on. Hence you send
"AT\r" and get back "AT\r\nOK\r\n"
To forestall your next question, if your modem uses the standard AT command set, you can probably send
"ATE0\r" instead of a plain "AT". That will turn echo off, although of course, your initial command will be echoed back to you, while subsequent ones won't.
Steve S
Developer for hire
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for answer my question!But the problem is not what you said,I send "at e0\r",and then I send "at\r",but the message I receive from the SerialPort is "at e0\rat\r",that's very curious!Waiting for you reply!Thanks you very much!
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm. My modem programming is rusty. I think it may be AT&E0 that you need to turn off echo.
Have you got a reference manual for the modem? Failing that, you could try google...
Steve S
Developer for hire
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
If you have trouble with serial port software in connection with modem,
then I strongly suggest you split the problem in two parts:
- test you cable and modem using an existing app, such as HyperTerminal;
this will also help you in learning modem commands (use on info from Google)
- develop your serial port code without a modem, use a second PC (maybe again
with HyperTerminal; and with a null modem, or null modem cable) or something
else
Only once you got both parts sufficiently solved, try to combine your app
with the modem.
BTW: I advise you to log all serial data (both in and out) in a file using
both hex and ASCII while debugging (and to leave the code in, but switch it off,
once you think it works adequately).
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
