Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register

Groups > comp.lang.basic.visual.misc > #4271

Serial Port Communication Between Two Pc Free

Show all headers | View raw

<div>On Uno, Nano, Mini, and Mega, pins 0 and 1 are used for communication with the computer. Connecting anything to these pins can interfere with that communication, including causing failed uploads to the board.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>Serial Port Communication Between Two Pc</div><div></div><div>Download Zip: https://t.co/nYQku7HKkH </div><div></div><div></div><div>I am first time posting, since I have odd issue so I would like if someome could please help. I would really appreciate, as I am out of solutions. Have Meraki MX appliance and 2 VLANs, first: 172.16.16.0/24 and second: 10.0. 0.0/24. Have camera surveillance server Exacqvision, in second VLAN,with IP 10.0.0.9, and 2 ports, web access port 8081 for web acces to server and cameras, and 22609 port for client app. All computers in second VLAN can use web and desktop app to access cameras on both ports, either via web, or using app. But computers in first VLAN can only use web access via port 8081 as it works without issues, but not through app, as app requires to work over port 22609, but it is not working accross from second VLAN to the first VLAN. I tried adding firewall rule to allow any ip any port from first VLAN to server IP and port 22609 in second VLAN, but it is not working. App says "can not find server, blocked by firewal or router". Can someone maybe help with advice, I would really appreciate. Thank you.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Thank you. Yes i can ping server. What troubles me is that inter VLAN connection works on port 8081, that is reserved for web service. Also, in servers VLAN, all computers can use both ports for access, 8081, and app port 22609.It is just that somehow 22609 is not available from other VLAN. I can ping server from any VLAN. 8081 web access works from any VLAN. People are used to app, so that is why I am looking for solution.</div><div></div><div></div><div>This article provides an overview of common ports that are used by Citrix components and must be considered as part of networking architecture, especially if communication traffic traverses network components such as firewalls or proxy servers where ports must be opened to ensure communication flow.</div><div></div><div></div><div>The only Citrix component needed to serve as a channel for communication between Citrix Cloud and your resource locations is a connector. This connector might be a Connector Appliance or a Cloud Connector depending on your use case. For more information on which connector you require, see Resource types.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Once installed, the Connector Appliance initiates communication with Citrix Cloud through an outbound connection. All connections are established from the Connector Appliance to the cloud using the standard HTTPS port (443) and the TCP protocol. No incoming connections are allowed.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>I hope someone can help me. I am trying to make a serial ports comunication in an ARM (I am working with Linux). The thing is that I am using program called terminal in windows which I use for see the output.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Now in one of the windows I have the ARM console (this is the ttymxc1 serial port) in which I write for example "echo hello > /dev/ttymxc2" (the ttymxc2 is the other port in the other windows). When I executed it somenthing appear, somenthing like this : "". I was reading and I found out that it usually is a baud rate problem, so I change the baud rate of the "ttymxc2" to 115200 like the "ttymxc1" both with the same speed. Once I did that and I tried to send again the same echo, appear this: ::*ë so, somenthig was changing.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Based on the positive results of the /proc/tty/driver/IMX-uart tests and the garbage data received, it seems safe to assume that Linux on your ARM board is sending output when you issue the shell command echo hello > /dev/ttymxc2. And we know that you have a good serial link between the host PC and /dev/ttymxc2, the serial console.</div><div></div><div></div><div>IF you still cannot get positive results from the swapping, then you need to provide more details of your setup.You mention something about USB. So apparently PC COM port_A and PC COM port_B are each a combination of USB port and somekind of RS-232-to-USB adapter?</div><div></div><div></div><div>In that situation I had, one serial port (on the SoC) was fixed at 115200 baud.</div><div></div><div>But you have full control of your situation.</div><div></div><div>So when you are receiving garbage data, one test to try is to reduce the baud rate (at both ends of the serial link) to 9600 or even 1200.</div><div></div><div></div><div>So to get this working I just added another Ubuntu VM on VirtualBox, and connected the two together via a virtual serial port. My main, original VM, which I use for a lot of developing will be referred to as VM1. The new VM, with a small hardrive that will only be used for sending messages to VM1 will be called VM2. These are both Ubuntu 10.04 VMs.</div><div></div><div></div><div>You should see Hello appear in the terminal open in VM1. When you're done running screen press ctrl-a k to kill it, otherwise if you try to do other stuff with the serial port you may get an error message saying that the port is busy.</div><div></div><div></div><div>When I had to do some serial port testing from my real to virtual machine I ended up doing a "loop back" type testing. I took two USB-Serial converters and a RS232 F-F adaptor and connected my machine to itself. Then in VirtualBox under Settings->USB you can route one of the two USB-Serial converters to be "owned" by your VirtualBox.</div><div></div><div></div><div>You can tell VirtualBox to connect the virtual serial port to a software pipe on the host. ... On a Mac, Linux or Solaris host, a local domain socket is used ... On Linux there are various tools which can connect to a local domain socket or create one in server mode. The most flexible tool is socat and is available as part of many distributions.</div><div></div><div></div><div>A very quick question to be sure in firewall's rules:</div><div></div><div>I have to open firewalls routes to permit traffic from the Forwarders to the indexers on 9997 port (one way).</div><div></div><div>Otherwise, to permit traffic between Forwarders and the Deployment Server on port 8089, I must open traffic both from and to the Deployment Server and the Forwarders. In other words, is it two way traffic or one way traffic like 9997?</div><div></div><div>I know that Forwarders call the Deployment Server and it polls them so I think that it's two way traffic, but I didn't find any confirmation to this in Splunk documentation.</div><div></div><div></div><div>I get what you're thinking... the forwarder queries the deployment server to see if any changes have been made to the apps... that's one way... and its not the deployment server querying the forwarders to see if they have the latest apps. However... how does the forwarder know that the deployment server received the request to check if there are apps? Then, how does the deployment server send the code back through the firewall if indeed there are apps to be updated on the forwarders. Even if the forwarders PULL the data, communications are traveling in both directions.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Once a connection is established from the Forwarder to the DS, I agree that the communication must be bidirectional on that connection. However, the question was about firewall rules and firewalls typically track connection state and allow packets to flow in both directions on an established connection ( _firewall). The question indicated that they already have a "one way" rule configured for Forwarder to Indexer traffic and I'm confident that they can use a similar rule for the Forwarder to DS traffic.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Finally, the communication from the Forwarder to the DS is typically going to be initiated from a random source port. Allowing the DS to send traffic to the Forwarder on destination port tcp/8089 will not have the desired result because the connection will have already been established from a different port on the Forwarder.</div><div></div><div></div><div>For what it's worth, the management port is turned off on our Forwarders and DS works fine. The connections go in just one direction since the DS does not currently poll deployment clients. Sounds like you have a plan for your environment; good luck!</div><div></div><div></div><div>Its networking / OSI model 101: TCP is a "connection-full" protocol. It requires bi-directional communications so the sender can receive ACKs from the receiver. UDP is a "connection-less" protocol. It sends data and doesnt care if anyone is listening or not.</div><div></div><div></div><div>All Splunk communications except for UDP/SYSLOG inputs & outputs are TCP. Therefore all Splunk ports are bi-directional. It doesnt matter what VISIO diagram you find and who/where it came from. Not everyone understands TCP, and very few ever have to understand bi-directional vs uni-directional. You can almost always count on the technical writers getting it wrong with their "arrows".</div><div></div><div></div><div>The "directionality" of the FIRST communication is typically what is being discussed here. If I let</div><div></div><div>Server 1 communicate to the Internet on port 80 via unidirectional rule... Then TCP works fine and traffic flows both directions. However it's only server 1 who can open / initiate the connection on port</div><div></div><div>80 and therefore the Internet can't open the connection back to server</div><div></div><div> 1. This means the forwarders can be unidirectional to the deployment server. Port 8089 however, typically carries traffic in both directions but it's not typically used on forwarders.</div><div></div><div></div><div>I agree to that. There is a confusion about what is "bidirectionnal" here. Any TCP connection, once opened by a source towards a destination on a specified port, will have data flowing in both directions by design: -1.5.</div><div></div><div></div><div>When firewall configuration considerations happen, then the true question to answer is not about flow but rather "who opens that connection ?". Who is the source and who is the destination ? That is what IT staffs asks me all the time : give me your "source + destination + protocol + port involved" (see, this is a one way rule).</div><div></div><div></div><div>IN all seriousness... I am hoping ANYONE can help me out answering a few (Possibly dumb) questions that I seem to not be able to get answers for. (been waiting over a week to get this answered from Sophos support).</div><div></div><div></div><div>I have read the Linked article a few times... plus others... but have not seen any info on just "HOW" to open these ports (or alteast "Best Practices") on the most secure way. I know this is probably second nature to most Server/Security guys... but for us one-man-bands (I seem to work on ANYTHING that plugs in the wall around here) it isn't something I do every day. I just want to make sure I am not opening myself up for SECURITY issues. I know Sophos markets itself as "EASY for the ONE-MAN-IT" departments, so I was hoping their documentation would reflect this. But so far I have found the community to be more informative. :-(</div><div></div><div> dd2b598166</div>

Back to comp.lang.basic.visual.misc | Previous | Next | Find similar

Thread

Serial Port Communication Between Two Pc Free Giselle Korsak <korsakgiselle@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 00:53 -0800

csiph-web