"Herbert Kleebauer" <klee@unibwm.de> wrote in message
news:tppki2$1p3f$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> On 12.01.2023 13:50, R.Wieser wrote:

> Then why not use an USB switch like:
>
> https://www.amazon.de//dp/B09Z6GV4G3/
>
> This way you don't have to manually remove the stick but
> just press a button.

:-) Once upon a time I was thinking about putting put an USB hub between my
keyboard and KVM, so that I could connect a thumbdrive too. Precisely with
the idea to have some easily shared go-between storage available.

I quickly dropped that idea when I realized that switching away from one
'puter to another would than be alike to yanking a thumbdrive outof the
first 'puters own USB slot. Always a lot of laughs when you have write
caching enabled - or just when a read or write has not yet finished. :-(

There is a reason why you're adviced to first eject an USB (thumb)drive
before physically removing it. Just to be sure nothing is still using it.
And thats not something that such a(n USB) switchbox can do.

Thanks for the suggestion though.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 12.01.2023 21:56, R.Wieser wrote:

> There is a reason why you're adviced to first eject an USB (thumb)drive
> before physically removing it. Just to be sure nothing is still using it.
> And thats not something that such a(n USB) switchbox can do.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/client-management/change-default-removal-policy-external-storage-media

|| Beginning in Windows 10 version 1809, the default policy is Quick removal.
||
|| In earlier versions of Windows, the default policy was Better performance.
||
|| Quick removal: This policy manages storage operations in a manner
|| that keeps the device ready to remove at any time. You can remove
|| the device without using the Safely Remove Hardware process. However,
|| to do this, Windows cannot cache disk write operations. This may
|| degrade system performance.

"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:ijl0sh9igpkhipc6s5t8p959kdulfcsb2b@4ax.com...

> I'll offer the solution that I would use. Note that you
> haven't said much about your requirements, nor your concerns, so I'm
> filling in the gaps here.
>
> I would use Ethernet, 100%. Nothing else comes close. Use an
> intermediary device*,

I was also thinking of such a solution. Perhaps using a Raspberry Pi. But
either way, its extra hardware and likely more costly compared to a
ready-made host-to-host serial connection.

> Given that this is some kind of a cross between "I've Got a
> Secret" and "20 Questions"

Do tell, whats the secret you think I'm withholding ? You see, I thought I
was quite clear about what I wanted : a serial USB host-to-host cable.
Nothing more, nothing less.

IOW, I can't be held accountable for any "he must mean something else, lets
just pretend he asked for that instead" thinking that someone might be
doing.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"Mark Lloyd" <not.email@all.invalid> wrote in message
news:aNZvL.311852$vBI8.123902@fx15.iad...

> There's no need for a router just to connect 2 computers

I'm afraid you missed all my "security considerations" mentioning, and why,
for that reason, I do *not* want to use a LAN connection (ethernet or
otherwise).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"Herbert Kleebauer" <klee@unibwm.de> wrote in message
news:tpptau$1qmo$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> On 12.01.2023 21:56, R.Wieser wrote:
>
>> There is a reason why you're adviced to first eject an USB (thumb)drive
>> before physically removing it. Just to be sure nothing is still using
>> it.
>> And thats not something that such a(n USB) switchbox can do.
>
> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/client-management/change-default-removal-policy-external-storage-media

I'm aware of that. But do you think that will help when you disconnect an
USB drive when its busy with a lengthy (copy) operation ? I don't think so.

And thats exactly what that USB switch box set you up to be doing. :-(

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 12.01.2023 22:33, R.Wieser wrote:
> "Herbert Kleebauer" <klee@unibwm.de> wrote in message
> news:tpptau$1qmo$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>> On 12.01.2023 21:56, R.Wieser wrote:
>>
>>> There is a reason why you're adviced to first eject an USB (thumb)drive
>>> before physically removing it. Just to be sure nothing is still using
>>> it.
>>> And thats not something that such a(n USB) switchbox can do.
>>
>> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/client-management/change-default-removal-policy-external-storage-media
>
> I'm aware of that. But do you think that will help when you disconnect an
> USB drive when its busy with a lengthy (copy) operation ? I don't think so.
>
> And thats exactly what that USB switch box set you up to be doing. :-(

And where is the difference to a RS232 cable for data transfer?
When you remove the cable in the middle of a data transfer,
the data transfer is interrupted and that is true for a RS232
cable connecting two PC and for an USB cable connecting a PC and
an USB drive. And because NTFS is a journaling file system,
the file system shouldn't be corrupted.

But why would you want to press the button on the USB switch
while a file copy is in progress? With your argumentation you
never could use removable data storage with a PC. The only
difference to your current method is, you don't have to physically
remove the stick from one PC and insert ist on the other PC,
instead you only have to press a button.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 22:17:01 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@not.available>
wrote:

>"Mark Lloyd" <not.email@all.invalid> wrote in message
>news:aNZvL.311852$vBI8.123902@fx15.iad...
>
>> There's no need for a router just to connect 2 computers
>
>I'm afraid you missed all my "security considerations" mentioning, and why,
>for that reason, I do *not* want to use a LAN connection (ethernet or
>otherwise).

No, he was replying to David E. Ross, not to you. Mr. Ross suggested
using a router, so Mr. Lloyd's response, above, was 100% correct.

Besides, the security concerns that you've brought up are rather easy to
mitigate, don't you think?

On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 22:14:01 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@not.available>
wrote:

>"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
>news:ijl0sh9igpkhipc6s5t8p959kdulfcsb2b@4ax.com...
>
>> I'll offer the solution that I would use. Note that you
>> haven't said much about your requirements, nor your concerns, so I'm
>> filling in the gaps here.
>>
>> I would use Ethernet, 100%. Nothing else comes close. Use an
>> intermediary device*,
>
>I was also thinking of such a solution. Perhaps using a Raspberry Pi. But
>either way, its extra hardware and likely more costly compared to a
>ready-made host-to-host serial connection.

It doesn't have to include any new hardware, and thus no additional
cost, if your existing hardware can host a virtual environment. Most
semi-modern equipment can.

>> Given that this is some kind of a cross between "I've Got a
>> Secret" and "20 Questions"
>
>Do tell, whats the secret you think I'm withholding ? You see, I thought I
>was quite clear about what I wanted : a serial USB host-to-host cable.
>Nothing more, nothing less.
>
>IOW, I can't be held accountable for any "he must mean something else, lets
>just pretend he asked for that instead" thinking that someone might be
>doing.

OK, carry on. Good luck!

"Herbert Kleebauer" <klee@unibwm.de> wrote in message
news:tpq70d$1j6m$1@gioia.aioe.org...

>> And thats exactly what that USB switch box set you up to be doing. :-(
>
> And where is the difference to a RS232 cable for data transfer?

:-) You're not /that/ stupid.

> When you remove the cable in the middle of a data transfer,
> the data transfer is interrupted and that is true for a RS232
> cable connecting two PC and for an USB cable connecting a \
> PC and an USB drive.

Ah yes, a comparision where the issue, the USB switchbox is not even
mentioned. Fail.

> And because NTFS is a journaling file system,
> the file system shouldn't be corrupted.

Another two fails : pushing the problematic effects away from whats causing
it as well as making an assumption about the file systems on the computers
that that USB switchbox is used with.

> But why would you want to press the button on the USB switch
> while a file copy is in progress?

Nope, playing stupid isn't going to work here either. But read on.

> With your argumentation you never could use removable data storage with a
> PC.

I guess reading what I already wrote is a bit to hard for you ? I
specifically mentioned that my MO is to eject the USB drive before
physically removing it.

FYI, that is so the OS can tell me if its still busy with it and I should
not remove it yet. Something that is completely missing in your story
around that USB switchbox. :-(

> The only difference to your current method is, you don't have to
> physically
> remove the stick from one PC and insert ist on the other PC,
> instead you only have to press a button.

See above. If-and-when you don't care about making sure the USB drive is
not in the middle of something (even if its just an open file) than you
stand a good chance to corrupt whatever is on it. And no, I don't think its
a good idea to just assume that the involved filesystems (you know nothing
about) will (be able to) deal with it.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:i0j1sht94sq9pcdsl702uv5acovo2fqm6s@4ax.com...

> No, he was replying to David E. Ross, not to you. Mr. Ross
> suggested using a router, so Mr. Lloyd's response, above,
> was 100% correct.

Ah yes. I didn't consider that context. My apologies.

> Besides, the security concerns that you've brought up are rather
> easy to mitigate, don't you think?

In that case it should not be a problem for you to include them into your
next post. :-)

But no, I don't think so. But, please do prove me wrong!

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:i8k1sht21o6n1n16fe49ht3t3e5js0gcti@4ax.com...

> It doesn't have to include any new hardware, and thus no
> additional cost, if your existing hardware can host a
> virtual environment. Most semi-modern equipment can.

Lol, no.

The software that would do the mitigation of the problems I mentioned toward
a LAN connection would run on the software layer that supports those virtual
enviroments, right ? And that supporting layer could be running all kinds
of services that try to connect or listen to the LAN too, right ? That
would men you would just have shifted the problem with the LAN from the
virtual environment to the supporting layer.

Nope, I think I will keep it with (as much as possible) physical seperation.

Besides, if I would believe in virtual environments why would I need a
physical cable ? Just fire up two virtual environments and connect their
serial ports in the supporting layer. Job done.

>> Do tell, whats the secret you think I'm withholding ? You see,
>> I thought I was quite clear about what I wanted : a serial USB
>> host-to-host cable. Nothing more, nothing less.
>>
>> IOW, I can't be held accountable for any "he must mean something
>> else, lets just pretend he asked for that instead" thinking that
>> someone might be doing.
>
> OK, carry on. Good luck!

Alas, you're quick enough with making an accusatorial claim, but do not seem
to have anything ready to support it with. :-|

Too bad, as actually wanted to know what I, according to you, should have
said instead of what I did. Maybe your way would have actually given me the
answer I was looking for, instead of all those, not doubt well ment,
suggestions to just use something else.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 1/12/2023 12:08 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On 1/11/23 13:37, David E. Ross wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> You are describing a local-area network (LAN). Have you considered
>> having a router with ethernet cables to create your LAN?
>
> A router is used to connect multiple networks (such as connecting your
> own network to the internet). There's no need for a router just to
> connect 2 computers (more than 2 wound require a switch, but not a router).
>

My router connects to a modem, through which we connect to the Internet.
Since my router has multiple local ports, my wife and I are connected
as a LAN through the router. Both of our PCs have only one ether-net
port, so this was the only way we could create a LAN. Yes, it is indeed
a LAN and not a WAN since we are both on the same side of a modem
connection to the Internet.

--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Beyond Meat and other such vegetarian meat substitutes
represent the ultimate in ultra-processed foods. Real
meat is natural. Beyond Meat is definitely not.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 09:47:26 -0800, "David E. Ross"
<nobody@notme.invalid> wrote:

>On 1/12/2023 12:08 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> On 1/11/23 13:37, David E. Ross wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> You are describing a local-area network (LAN). Have you considered
>>> having a router with ethernet cables to create your LAN?
>>
>> A router is used to connect multiple networks (such as connecting your
>> own network to the internet). There's no need for a router just to
>> connect 2 computers (more than 2 wound require a switch, but not a router).
>>
>
>My router connects to a modem, through which we connect to the Internet.

The consumer device that we all call a router is actually several
devices integrated into a single package, with the router function being
just one of them. The other major functions are the Ethernet switch and
(usually) the wireless access point. Note that all 3 of those things can
also be purchased separately.

Back to the topic, when two computers on the same network (LAN) need to
talk to each other and they both use a wired connection to "the thing we
call a router", they are only using the Ethernet switch portion of the
device. That traffic doesn't touch the router portion of the device. The
Ethernet switch is connected to the access point, though, so if one or
both of the computers is using a wireless connection, then the access
point comes into play.

> Since my router has multiple local ports,

Those ports are the visible portion of the Ethernet switch.

>my wife and I are connected
>as a LAN through the router.

Not through the router portion, but through the Ethernet switch that's
included in "the thing we call a router". LAN traffic never actually
touches the router portion of that device.

>Both of our PCs have only one ether-net
>port, so this was the only way we could create a LAN. Yes, it is indeed
>a LAN and not a WAN since we are both on the same side of a modem
>connection to the Internet.

The critical part is that you're both on the same side of a router*, not
the same side of a modem.

*Plus a bunch of other necessary stuff, like being on the same subnet,
appropriate subnet masks, non-conflicting IP addresses, etc.

On 13.01.2023 08:39, R.Wieser wrote:

First, lets take a look back: You said, you currently use
an USB stick to transfer data between two PCs but were looking
for a "better" way to do it. My suggestion was, to use an
USB switch connected to both PC's and an USB memory stick
inserted in the output of the switch. By a mechanical button
you can select which one of the two PC's is connected to the stick.

The process of the data transfer is exactly the same in
both cases. First PC A is connected to the stick and the data
is written on the stick, then the stick is physically separated
from PC A and connected to PC B and the data transferred from the
stick to PC B. The only difference is the way how the stick
is separated from and connected to the PC: in the first case
you manually remove the stick and in the second case you unconnect
the wires by a switch.

Now you can say: Yes it is a "better" way (because now you have only
to press a button lying on the desk, instead of physically transferring
the stick) but it is not "good enough". But you can't say, that the
new method introduces problems which are not present in the current
method, because they are identical.

>>> I'm aware of that. But do you think that will help when you disconnect an
>>> USB drive when its busy with a lengthy (copy) operation ? I don't think so.
>>> >>> And thats exactly what that USB switch box set you up to be doing. :-(
>> And where is the difference to a RS232 cable for data transfer?

> :-) You're not /that/ stupid.

Yes, I'm that stupid and I hoped, you can enlighten me. You say,
there are problems when the USB cable is cut through while data
is written onto the stick. I say, there is also a problem if you
cut through an RS232 cable if currently data is transferred. What
is the difference between this two problems?

>> When you remove the cable in the middle of a data transfer,
>> the data transfer is interrupted and that is true for a RS232
>> cable connecting two PC and for an USB cable connecting a
>> PC and an USB drive.
>
> Ah yes, a comparision where the issue, the USB switchbox is not even
> mentioned. Fail.

What do you think the switch box does? It removes the cable
connection between the input and output port and that's
exactly what I said above: "remove the cable in the middle
of a data transfer". Which other issue if the switch box
do you mean?

>> And because NTFS is a journaling file system,
>> the file system shouldn't be corrupted.
>
> Another two fails : pushing the problematic effects away from whats causing
> it as well as making an assumption about the file systems on the computers
> that that USB switchbox is used with.

I didn't make any assumption about the file systems on the PCs,
they doesn't mater at all. I said, on the stick NTFS should
be used. And the stick is part if the communication unit which
shouldn't be removed (use super glue to make it unremovable).
And it's up to you to format it properly (so no assumption
but a suggestion).

>> But why would you want to press the button on the USB switch
>> while a file copy is in progress?
>
> Nope, playing stupid isn't going to work here either. But read on.

Seems you are playing here. There are only problems if you
press the button while a file copy is in progress. So again
my question: Why would you want to press the button on the
USB switch while a file copy is in progress? And if you don't
press the button while a file copy is in progress, there are
no problems.

>> With your argumentation you never could use removable data storage with a
>> PC.
>
> I guess reading what I already wrote is a bit to hard for you ? I
> specifically mentioned that my MO is to eject the USB drive before
> physically removing it.

Seems you are not reading what I wrote:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/client-management/change-default-removal-policy-external-storage-media

There is absolutely no need to use the "Safely Remove Hardware process"
if you didn't change the default policy "Quick removal". But again,
even if there were problems, they have nothing to do witch the switch
box, you would have the same problems with your current method (pulling
the stick manually).

> FYI, that is so the OS can tell me if its still busy with it and I should
> not remove it yet. Something that is completely missing in your story
> around that USB switchbox. :-(

If you use "Quick removal", then you don't have to care about the
OS thinking the stick is still in use by some programs, as long
as the data transfer has finished (and that will you see from
progress bar of the copy command). And again, this has nothing
to do with the use of a switch box, manually pulling the stick
from the PC has exactly the same effect.

>> The only difference to your current method is, you don't have to
>> physically
>> remove the stick from one PC and insert ist on the other PC,
>> instead you only have to press a button.
>
> See above.

Yes, see (or better read) above.

> If-and-when you don't care about making sure the USB drive is
> not in the middle of something (even if its just an open file) than you
> stand a good chance to corrupt whatever is on it. And no, I don't think its
> a good idea to just assume that the involved filesystems (you know nothing
> about) will (be able to) deal with it.

Try it. And tell me if you were able generate a corruption!

And that must be two very special PC's so you absolutely
refuse a suggestion made by other posters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcpH5U3KWts

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 08:48:06 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@not.available>
wrote:

>
>"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
>news:i0j1sht94sq9pcdsl702uv5acovo2fqm6s@4ax.com...
>
>> No, he was replying to David E. Ross, not to you. Mr. Ross
>> suggested using a router, so Mr. Lloyd's response, above,
>> was 100% correct.
>
>Ah yes. I didn't consider that context. My apologies.
>
>> Besides, the security concerns that you've brought up are rather
>> easy to mitigate, don't you think?
>
>In that case it should not be a problem for you to include them into your
>next post. :-)
>
>But no, I don't think so. But, please do prove me wrong!

I don't want to push water up hill, so if this isn't for you, that's
fine. All I'm saying is that you can connect two PCs together via
Ethernet and only allow the specific traffic that you want to allow,
while blocking everything else.

I wouldn't trust the built-in firewalls for that, which is why I
suggested using an intermediary firewall device. Once the physical
connection is made and the intermediary firewall device is configured to
drop all traffic, use Wireshark or similar to verify that no traffic is
flowing. At that point, add a firewall rule that only allows the type of
traffic that you want to use. By chance, if you decide on telnet, ssh,
or scp, then my client of choice would be the free Putty. Whatever you
decide on, add a fw rule that allows ONLY that traffic. Now you have a
high speed connection that blocks all of the chatty Windows services
that you've said you don't like.

That intermediary device can be physical or virtual. In fact, all 3 of
the nodes can be physical or virtual, in any mix.

If I've still missed the mark, I'm sorry, but I'm working with a very
limited set of requirements. Good luck with your project.

"Herbert Kleebauer" <klee@unibwm.de> wrote in message
news:tpsp44$1rc1$1@gioia.aioe.org...

> But you can't say, that the new method introduces problems which are not
> present in the current method, because they are identical.

In that case you have not understood a single iota of what I have tried to
explain to you. Multiple times.

> I say, there is also a problem if you cut through an RS232 cable if
> currently data is transferred. What is the difference between this two
> problems?

Nothing.

..... other than that it has absolutily zero to do with the USB switchbox
problem.

>> Ah yes, a comparision where the issue, the USB switchbox is not even
>> mentioned. Fail.
>
> What do you think the switch box does? It removes the cable
> connection between the input and output port and that's
> exactly what I said above:

Yep

.... while no - doubt purposely - ignoring everything that makes them
different.

> I didn't make any assumption about the file systems on the PCs,
> they doesn't mater at all.

As I said, you're not *that* stupid. But for some reason you are choosing
to act that way.

> I said, on the stick NTFS should be used.

Lol!. What was that about "I didn't make any assumption" ? Fail.

> Seems you are playing here. There are only problems if you
> press the button while a file copy is in progress.

As mentioned, among others.

> So again my question: Why would you want to press the button on the USB
> switch while a file copy is in progress?

Yep, obviously playing stupid.

I ask you again : how would you know that such thing is *not* still going on
?

> And if you don't press the button while a file copy is in progress, there
> are no problems.

See above.

>> I guess reading what I already wrote is a bit to hard for you ? I
>> specifically mentioned that my MO is to eject the USB drive before
>> physically removing it.
>
> Seems you are not reading what I wrote:
>
> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/client-management/change-default-removal-policy-external-storage-media

Funny. So, you think that you can just yank USB drive out because that
policy will magically protect you from any damage done to its filesystem ?

No, you don't. You've already posted enough that I am aware that you know
it doesn't work that way.

Now the only question is why you try to bullshit me this way.

> There is absolutely no need to use the "Safely Remove Hardware process"

Well, the only thing you need to do is to wait until the OS has fully
released the hardware before you press that switchbox button or disconnect
the cable.

..... I just wonder how you would make sure of that ....

> Try it. And tell me if you were able generate a corruption!

I don't have to, as I had the "pleasure" to explain to others why their
stick became corrupted.

Besides, you are again bullshitting here, as you have made quite clear that
if a corruption on an USB drive is fixed by the the filesystem - you make no
assumptions about it but should be NTFS - you do not consider it a
corruption at all.

And oh yeah, that was itself already bullshitting , as you rejected my
mentioning that the problem exists for all the filesystems of the attached
computers. For some reason you seem to think about that USB memory stick
as something only to to copy *to*, but never *from* ...

> And that must be two very special PC's so you absolutely
> refuse a suggestion made by other posters:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcpH5U3KWts

What ! Where is that camera you have placed in my house so you could keep an
eye on me !? Or have you pushed a trojan onto my system and can see me
doing anything-and-everything ?

What was that ? You did neither ? Than on what basis you think you can
claim something as "you absolutely refuse a suggestion" ? Yes, thats
right. On nothing.

tl;dr:
You've made clear that you have no wish to address the problem I mentioned
with that USB switchbox, but instead opted to, effectivily, lie to me. As
a result the usefullness of our "conversation" has ended.

So, goodbye.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

P.s.
I though you where a knowledgable, classy bloke. Some who I should respect
for that. Alas, you've shown me to be neither. :-(

"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:r574shp87f3qlmte0bdqmqa588dmvtqgjb@4ax.com...

> All I'm saying is that you can connect two PCs together via
> Ethernet and only allow the specific traffic that you want to
> allow, *while blocking everything else*.

(bolding mine)

Thats the whole problem.

I can depend on that software running on the same machine will take care of
that, but I already explained why I think it would not stand a chance
against whatever the OS thinks it wants to throw over the attached LAN.

> I wouldn't trust the built-in firewalls for that, which is why
> I suggested using an intermediary firewall device.

So would I. And I mentioned possibly using a Raspberry Pi for it.

But the last thing you said was that no additional hardware would be
required, which is wat I disagreed with and tried to explain why.

> Once the physical connection is made and the intermediary firewall
> device is configured to drop all traffic, use Wireshark or similar
> to verify that no traffic is flowing. At that point, add a firewall
> rule that only allows the type of traffic that you want to use.

Now compare that to using serial connection in (USB or otherwise). Without
having to do *anything* it solves all that and is ready for use.

> If I've still missed the mark, I'm sorry, but I'm working with a very
> limited set of requirements. Good luck with your project.

You've offered me what you would do if you would do something similar, and
what you would do to mitigate the problems I mentioned. I do thank you
(and others here) for wanting to help me that way.

The thing is that I already considered a number of possible solutions. From
just connecting two USB-to-serial adapters/cables to each other to using a
Rapberry Pi as ethernet filter to a reconfigured Raspberry Pi Zero to act as
an USB device and as such allowing a host-to-host USB connection to just try
to find something ready-made that has the lowest ammount of problems to
solve.

Only after I made my decision on what I wanted to use I posted my question
about if such a thing (still) exists and how/where to aquire it.

Now do you understand why I have a bit of a problem with all those, no doubt
well ment by the way, "use something else" suggestions ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote in
news:tpn2v3$1jlj$1@gioia.aioe.org:

So, here we are, a couple days on and coulpe/few dozen replies to your query, and still
no solution?

Am I wrong, or is this your typical MO...you post a question, and then tell everyone
they're wrong, and it won't work, and that's not what I asked, and 'you don't understand
the question', and the goalposts get moved as it goes on, and such?

> Hello all,
>
> I've got an USB host-to-host (data) cable (the one with
> some hardware in the middle). The problem is that it
> presents itself as ... something which needs cable-specific
> drivers to be installed before it will/can work. And
> ofcourse it software wants to emulate a LAN connection when
> given half a chance. :-\
>
> What I'm looking for instead is a simple USB host-to-host
> cable which is recognised by the OS as a standard serial
> port (without needing to install drivers). I've been
> googeling, DDG-ing, brave-ing and startpage-ing for a
> while, but cannot seem to find such a cable.
>
> So, my question : does someone here know of the existance
> of such a simple USB host-to-host serial connection cable
> and has an URL for me ?
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
>
>

In article <XnsAF8C5E7C0BB95thisnthatroadrunnern@69.80.101.12>, DanS
<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:

> So, here we are, a couple days on and coulpe/few dozen replies to your query,
> and still
> no solution?
>
> Am I wrong, or is this your typical MO...you post a question, and then tell
> everyone
> they're wrong, and it won't work, and that's not what I asked, and 'you don't
> understand
> the question', and the goalposts get moved as it goes on, and such?

you're not wrong.

it was obvious very early on that this was going to be yet another
instance of the usual.

>
>
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I've got an USB host-to-host (data) cable (the one with
> > some hardware in the middle). The problem is that it
> > presents itself as ... something which needs cable-specific
> > drivers to be installed before it will/can work. And
> > ofcourse it software wants to emulate a LAN connection when
> > given half a chance. :-\
> >
> > What I'm looking for instead is a simple USB host-to-host
> > cable which is recognised by the OS as a standard serial
> > port (without needing to install drivers). I've been
> > googeling, DDG-ing, brave-ing and startpage-ing for a
> > while, but cannot seem to find such a cable.
> >
> > So, my question : does someone here know of the existance
> > of such a simple USB host-to-host serial connection cable
> > and has an URL for me ?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rudy Wieser
> >
> >
>

On 1/14/2023 5:09 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> "Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
> news:r574shp87f3qlmte0bdqmqa588dmvtqgjb@4ax.com...
>
>> All I'm saying is that you can connect two PCs together via
>> Ethernet and only allow the specific traffic that you want to
>> allow, *while blocking everything else*.
>
> (bolding mine)
>
> Thats the whole problem.
>
> I can depend on that software running on the same machine will take care of
> that, but I already explained why I think it would not stand a chance
> against whatever the OS thinks it wants to throw over the attached LAN.
>
>> I wouldn't trust the built-in firewalls for that, which is why
>> I suggested using an intermediary firewall device.
>
> So would I. And I mentioned possibly using a Raspberry Pi for it.
>
> But the last thing you said was that no additional hardware would be
> required, which is wat I disagreed with and tried to explain why.
>
>> Once the physical connection is made and the intermediary firewall
>> device is configured to drop all traffic, use Wireshark or similar
>> to verify that no traffic is flowing. At that point, add a firewall
>> rule that only allows the type of traffic that you want to use.
>
> Now compare that to using serial connection in (USB or otherwise). Without
> having to do *anything* it solves all that and is ready for use.
>
>> If I've still missed the mark, I'm sorry, but I'm working with a very
>> limited set of requirements. Good luck with your project.
>
> You've offered me what you would do if you would do something similar, and
> what you would do to mitigate the problems I mentioned. I do thank you
> (and others here) for wanting to help me that way.
>
>
> The thing is that I already considered a number of possible solutions. From
> just connecting two USB-to-serial adapters/cables to each other to using a
> Rapberry Pi as ethernet filter to a reconfigured Raspberry Pi Zero to act as
> an USB device and as such allowing a host-to-host USB connection to just try
> to find something ready-made that has the lowest ammount of problems to
> solve.
>
> Only after I made my decision on what I wanted to use I posted my question
> about if such a thing (still) exists and how/where to aquire it.
>
> Now do you understand why I have a bit of a problem with all those, no doubt
> well ment by the way, "use something else" suggestions ?
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
>
>
Something free would use DropBox or OneDrive. The file is used in a
known folder "A" on each machine so make a batch to encrypt the file and
deposit to the chosen service and then a batch to decrypt with the known
password and place it in folder "A" on another machine.

"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message
news:XnsAF8C5E7C0BB95thisnthatroadrunnern@69.80.101.12...
> "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote in
> news:tpn2v3$1jlj$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>
> So, here we are, a couple days on and coulpe/few dozen replies to
> your query, and still no solution?

I've got just one question What exactly was my query ?

Hint : If you can't be bothered to read the initial post than you can just
look at the subject line.

> Am I wrong, or is this your typical MO...you post a question, and
> then tell everyone they're wrong, and it won't work,

You're absolutily free to explain to me what you are actually referring to -
a quote would be nice - and how it actually /does/ work.

As you've currently shown complaining (about someone or thing) is eazy.
Lets see if you find it as easy to underbuilt your complainst. My guess
(experianc with similar people in the past) : you won't even *try*.

> and that's not what I asked,

Are you claiming *anyone* here has actually replied to what I asked ? I
look forward to you quoting a few of them. Should be easy, right ? Good
luck.

> and 'you don't understand the question',

I don't think I've said that here. Although I likely have mentioned that the
suggestion to use a different solution was not what I was looking for. But
again, quote it.

> and the goalposts get moved as it goes on, and such?

Lol. I've time-and-again mentioned what I was/am looking for. So, what do
you mean "moving goalposts" ? You again owe me an explanation.

Bottom line : you've complained your ass off but have provided nothing to
support any of those claims. Just some suggestive vagueness.

Your turn. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"Zaidy036" <Zaidy036@air.isp.spam> wrote in message
news:tpujis$1t0rp$1@dont-email.me...
> On 1/14/2023 5:09 AM, R.Wieser wrote:

> Something free would use DropBox or OneDrive.

Yes, it would be free. It would also be a "Rube Goldberg machine"* type of
solution just to connect two machines that are in the same room not even a
meter apart.

* google for it. Those things are fun to see.

> The file is used in a known folder "A" on each machine so make a batch to
> encrypt the file and deposit to the chosen service and then a batch to
> decrypt with the known password and place it in folder "A" on another
> machine.

I see you don't trust that kind of services either. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 1/14/2023 1:17 PM, R.Wieser wrote:
> "Zaidy036" <Zaidy036@air.isp.spam> wrote in message
> news:tpujis$1t0rp$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 1/14/2023 5:09 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
>
>> Something free would use DropBox or OneDrive.
>
> Yes, it would be free. It would also be a "Rube Goldberg machine"* type of
> solution just to connect two machines that are in the same room not even a
> meter apart.
>
> * google for it. Those things are fun to see.
>
>> The file is used in a known folder "A" on each machine so make a batch to
>> encrypt the file and deposit to the chosen service and then a batch to
>> decrypt with the known password and place it in folder "A" on another
>> machine.
>
> I see you don't trust that kind of services either. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
>
>
Nothing Rube Goldberg about batch files. Simple and secure when using
encryption. Read:
<https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/different-ways-to-connect-one-computer-to-another-computer/>

"R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote in
news:tpurjr$1q7p$1@gioia.aioe.org:

>
> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote
> in message
> news:XnsAF8C5E7C0BB95thisnthatroadrunnern@69.80.101.12...
>> "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote in
>> news:tpn2v3$1jlj$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>>
>> So, here we are, a couple days on and coulpe/few dozen
>> replies to your query, and still no solution?
>
> I've got just one question What exactly was my query ?

How to transfer files over USB using something that doesn't want to install drivers and
work 'like ethernet'.

Although I did remeber it, you can't be that stupid to not realize that with this non-
realtime communicatrion method, I can just reread it before replying here?

>
> Hint : If you can't be bothered to read the initial post
> than you can just look at the subject line.

How about...I read 30 of the posts in this thread before making my comment.

>
>> Am I wrong, or is this your typical MO...you post a
>> question, and then tell everyone they're wrong, and it
>> won't work,
>
> You're absolutily free to explain to me what you are
> actually referring to - a quote would be nice - and how it
> actually /does/ work.
>
> As you've currently shown complaining (about someone or
> thing) is eazy. Lets see if you find it as easy to
> underbuilt your complainst. My guess (experianc with
> similar people in the past) : you won't even *try*.

Well, the very first one that came to mind, was the thread you started entitled

"[OT]? How to read facebook groups (and alike) posts"

....where you were claiming no one understood your questions. That was the thread
that came to mind when I was reading this one, and thoght to myself, is this that same
guy? Sure as sh*t, here you are.

This is where you wanted to read FB posts w/o a FB account, or using any JS.

>> and that's not what I asked,
>
> Are you claiming *anyone* here has actually replied to what
> I asked ? I look forward to you quoting a few of them.
> Should be easy, right ? Good luck.

Yup...

How about...from Andy Burns, Wed 11.

"buy two USB->serial leads, and join them with a null-modem cable (female DB9
each end with crossover)"

That's EXACTLY what you'e looking for, oh, but wait...

....you were crying about having to install drivers. Or was it only crying about USB
drivers that mimic ethernet?

You can buy USB-to-TTL serial cables on e-bay for like @ $5. They'll usually include
'Arduino' in the description. And use the serial terminal program of your choice.

You're condescdending attitude makes me think you're a 'diehard linux user', as
evidenced in a reply you wrote to Herbert Kleebauer in this thread. Including
statements such as...

"You're not /that/ stupid." (Note: This is why I used the term stupid the way I did I my
second sentence of this reply.)

"Another two fails : pushing the problematic effects away from whats causing
it as well as making an assumption about the file systems on the computers
that that USB switchbox is used with."

"Nope, playing stupid isn't going to work here either. But read on."

"I guess reading what I already wrote is a bit to hard for you ?"

>> and 'you don't understand the question',
>
> I don't think I've said that here. Although I likely have
> mentioned that the suggestion to use a different solution
> was not what I was looking for.

....you mean like in the previously mentioned thread about how to read FB posts w/o a
FB account or using JS?

....because there is no way to do so, and suggestions involving doing those was the
only way to. You were just refusing to believe it was not possible.

> But again, quote it.
>
>> and the goalposts get moved as it goes on, and such?
>
> Lol. I've time-and-again mentioned what I was/am looking
> for. So, what do you mean "moving goalposts" ? You again
> owe me an explanation.
>
> Bottom line : you've complained your ass off but have
> provided nothing to support any of those claims. Just some
> suggestive vagueness.
>
> Your turn. :-)

How's that? I've supplied some cites.

And no, no suggestive vagueness...

....that what YOU do with your questions and follow up comments.

"Zaidy036" <Zaidy036@air.isp.spam> wrote in message
news:tpv6ik$1sv83$1@dont-email.me...
> On 1/14/2023 1:17 PM, R.Wieser wrote:

> Nothing Rube Goldberg about batch files. Simple and secure when using
> encryption.

All kinds of Rube Goldberg about sending data to some server half a world
away, only to have it come back to a machine thats next to the one it came
from.

All kinds of Rube Goldberg about encrypting some data only to (effectivily)
have it decrypted directly after.

Yes, I understand that that encryption is ment to keep the data safe on its
trip all over the world and that a batchfile aids in turning a multi-step
process into a single-step one. Don't worry about that.

I just find it humorous thinking about the rather round-about way of geting
data copied from one machine to another one which is pretty much next to the
first.

And yes, its a no-cost possibility. Though cost was not on my mind when I
expressed my reluctance to use extra hardware. What was was having carry
that extra stuff around and set it up when I would want to connect two
different machines.

Mind you, my initial question was in regard to something similar I already
have, which has the needed hardware build into the cable.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser