Skip to content
  • MySensors
  • OpenHardware.io
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo
  1. Home
  2. Development
  3. [security] Introducing signing support to MySensors

[security] Introducing signing support to MySensors

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Development
security
491 Posts 48 Posters 334.0k Views 30 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • magpernM Offline
    magpernM Offline
    magpern
    wrote on last edited by magpern
    #405

    I cannot get my china USB to Serial device to work with the arduino boards, so I cannot program the board to run the personalization. As a work around a use a Arduino Uno board as the "USB to Serial" and now I can upload the sketch and the personalizer writes to serial output fine at 115200 baud.
    But, when it wants me to press SPACE, it responds with "Unexpected answer. Skipping lock."

    I tried an other sketch that does Serial.read() and echos back the result. It does not work at 115200 but works at 9600 baud. At 9600 I get char 32 back as SPACE, but 160 or 130 or 254 at 115200. Maybe the Uno board cannot handle 115200?

    So, question: Can the personalizer sketch be changed to use 9600 (or something slower than 115200)? I tried to change the Serial.begin(115200) to 9600, but it is still 115200.

    (of course, I can alter the code to bypass the press SPACE to press any key, but I want to get to the bottom with the problem)

    AnticimexA mfalkviddM 3 Replies Last reply
    0
    • magpernM magpern

      I cannot get my china USB to Serial device to work with the arduino boards, so I cannot program the board to run the personalization. As a work around a use a Arduino Uno board as the "USB to Serial" and now I can upload the sketch and the personalizer writes to serial output fine at 115200 baud.
      But, when it wants me to press SPACE, it responds with "Unexpected answer. Skipping lock."

      I tried an other sketch that does Serial.read() and echos back the result. It does not work at 115200 but works at 9600 baud. At 9600 I get char 32 back as SPACE, but 160 or 130 or 254 at 115200. Maybe the Uno board cannot handle 115200?

      So, question: Can the personalizer sketch be changed to use 9600 (or something slower than 115200)? I tried to change the Serial.begin(115200) to 9600, but it is still 115200.

      (of course, I can alter the code to bypass the press SPACE to press any key, but I want to get to the bottom with the problem)

      AnticimexA Offline
      AnticimexA Offline
      Anticimex
      Contest Winner
      wrote on last edited by
      #406

      @Magnus-Pernemark
      Question 1: so you run stable release or beta?
      Answer 1: yes you can change baud rate but it is handled differently between stable and beta.

      Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

      1 Reply Last reply
      1
      • magpernM magpern

        I cannot get my china USB to Serial device to work with the arduino boards, so I cannot program the board to run the personalization. As a work around a use a Arduino Uno board as the "USB to Serial" and now I can upload the sketch and the personalizer writes to serial output fine at 115200 baud.
        But, when it wants me to press SPACE, it responds with "Unexpected answer. Skipping lock."

        I tried an other sketch that does Serial.read() and echos back the result. It does not work at 115200 but works at 9600 baud. At 9600 I get char 32 back as SPACE, but 160 or 130 or 254 at 115200. Maybe the Uno board cannot handle 115200?

        So, question: Can the personalizer sketch be changed to use 9600 (or something slower than 115200)? I tried to change the Serial.begin(115200) to 9600, but it is still 115200.

        (of course, I can alter the code to bypass the press SPACE to press any key, but I want to get to the bottom with the problem)

        AnticimexA Offline
        AnticimexA Offline
        Anticimex
        Contest Winner
        wrote on last edited by
        #407

        @Magnus-Pernemark there is a configuration switch to disable UART verification you can use

        Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • magpernM magpern

          I cannot get my china USB to Serial device to work with the arduino boards, so I cannot program the board to run the personalization. As a work around a use a Arduino Uno board as the "USB to Serial" and now I can upload the sketch and the personalizer writes to serial output fine at 115200 baud.
          But, when it wants me to press SPACE, it responds with "Unexpected answer. Skipping lock."

          I tried an other sketch that does Serial.read() and echos back the result. It does not work at 115200 but works at 9600 baud. At 9600 I get char 32 back as SPACE, but 160 or 130 or 254 at 115200. Maybe the Uno board cannot handle 115200?

          So, question: Can the personalizer sketch be changed to use 9600 (or something slower than 115200)? I tried to change the Serial.begin(115200) to 9600, but it is still 115200.

          (of course, I can alter the code to bypass the press SPACE to press any key, but I want to get to the bottom with the problem)

          mfalkviddM Offline
          mfalkviddM Offline
          mfalkvidd
          Mod
          wrote on last edited by
          #408

          @Magnus-Pernemark which version are you using?
          The development version from github supports

          #define MY_BAUD_RATE 9600
          

          at the start of the sketch.

          The 2.1.1 version has

          Serial.begin(115200);
          

          in the sketch. Just change that.

          magpernM 1 Reply Last reply
          1
          • mfalkviddM mfalkvidd

            @Magnus-Pernemark which version are you using?
            The development version from github supports

            #define MY_BAUD_RATE 9600
            

            at the start of the sketch.

            The 2.1.1 version has

            Serial.begin(115200);
            

            in the sketch. Just change that.

            magpernM Offline
            magpernM Offline
            magpern
            wrote on last edited by
            #409

            @Anticimex I am so not familiar with the arduino/mysensors development yet, but I guess I use 2.1.1, since i used "Sketch / Include Library / Manage Library" and it had 2.1.1

            @mfalkvidd Since I have the line Serial.begin(115200) I assume it is 2.1.1, but changing it to 9600 and uploading the sketch does nothing. I still need to open serial window with 115200, else I just see garbage as output from the mini pro.

            I will try the development version and see if that helps.

            AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • magpernM magpern

              @Anticimex I am so not familiar with the arduino/mysensors development yet, but I guess I use 2.1.1, since i used "Sketch / Include Library / Manage Library" and it had 2.1.1

              @mfalkvidd Since I have the line Serial.begin(115200) I assume it is 2.1.1, but changing it to 9600 and uploading the sketch does nothing. I still need to open serial window with 115200, else I just see garbage as output from the mini pro.

              I will try the development version and see if that helps.

              AnticimexA Offline
              AnticimexA Offline
              Anticimex
              Contest Winner
              wrote on last edited by
              #410

              @Magnus-Pernemark or you can just disable the confirmation altogether. Just define SKIP_UART_CONFIRMATION

              Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

              magpernM 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • AnticimexA Anticimex

                @Magnus-Pernemark or you can just disable the confirmation altogether. Just define SKIP_UART_CONFIRMATION

                magpernM Offline
                magpernM Offline
                magpern
                wrote on last edited by
                #411

                @Anticimex hehe, true... but I am a developer by trade, and bypassing something just because it would be easier, feels so wrong. I might end up doing so, but I'll give it some more tries first. Problems are a very good way to learn, and in arduino development I am a total noobie, more used to C# and the .NET world.

                AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • magpernM magpern

                  @Anticimex hehe, true... but I am a developer by trade, and bypassing something just because it would be easier, feels so wrong. I might end up doing so, but I'll give it some more tries first. Problems are a very good way to learn, and in arduino development I am a total noobie, more used to C# and the .NET world.

                  AnticimexA Offline
                  AnticimexA Offline
                  Anticimex
                  Contest Winner
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #412

                  @Magnus-Pernemark as a developer by trade, you should be bold enough to use the beta releases and live on the bleeding edge then ;)

                  Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

                  magpernM 1 Reply Last reply
                  1
                  • AnticimexA Anticimex

                    @Magnus-Pernemark as a developer by trade, you should be bold enough to use the beta releases and live on the bleeding edge then ;)

                    magpernM Offline
                    magpernM Offline
                    magpern
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #413

                    @Anticimex I'll start living on the edge immediately. It's the way to go!
                    I switched to develop and could change the band rate, however develop version skips UART confirmation by default so I never had the problem there. Never needed to send any keys. Got the chip configured atleast.
                    I kind of started in the wrong end - designed my own pcbs, then start to know the development environment.
                    But I'll figure it out... just takes time.. thanks for the help!!

                    AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • magpernM magpern

                      @Anticimex I'll start living on the edge immediately. It's the way to go!
                      I switched to develop and could change the band rate, however develop version skips UART confirmation by default so I never had the problem there. Never needed to send any keys. Got the chip configured atleast.
                      I kind of started in the wrong end - designed my own pcbs, then start to know the development environment.
                      But I'll figure it out... just takes time.. thanks for the help!!

                      AnticimexA Offline
                      AnticimexA Offline
                      Anticimex
                      Contest Winner
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #414

                      @Magnus-Pernemark that's correct. Or, it is correct if you follow the "guided mode". If you wanna be hardcore, you drop the guided defines and set the individual flags according to your specific needs, and then you get to enable (or more precisely, not disable) UART confirmation (in case you want to test it).

                      Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • gusG Offline
                        gusG Offline
                        gus
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #415

                        Hi!
                        Starting to learn signing. I use a parallell system (with another channel) where I could test signing before I went on my live system. For now I just use soft signing, it works perfect!

                        Now, I just want to test a node (motionsensor) that include:

                        #define MY_SIGNING_REQUEST_SIGNATURES
                        

                        The gateway has no signing feature (it has not gone thru personalition process) In my head, the node shall reject to connect to this gateway, but after the signing fails, it start to send data to the gateway. Did I miss something here?

                        Debug text on node:

                        0 MCO:BGN:INIT NODE,CP=RNNNAS--,VER=2.2.0-beta
                        49 SGN:PER:OK
                        83 SGN:INI:BND OK
                        83 TSM:INIT
                        86 TSF:WUR:MS=0
                        94 TSM:INIT:TSP OK
                        96 TSM:INIT:STATID=101
                        98 TSF:SID:OK,ID=101
                        100 TSM:FPAR
                        102 SGN:SGN:NREQ=255
                        139 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-255-255,s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:
                        684 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-101,s=255,c=3,t=8,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:0
                        690 SGN:SKP:MSG CMD=3,TYPE=8
                        692 TSF:MSG:FPAR OK,ID=0,D=1
                        2148 TSM:FPAR:OK
                        2148 TSM:ID
                        2150 TSM:ID:OK
                        2152 TSM:UPL
                        2154 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0
                        2158 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=24,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:1
                        2168 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-101,s=255,c=3,t=25,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:1
                        2174 SGN:SKP:MSG CMD=3,TYPE=25
                        2177 TSF:MSG:PONG RECV,HP=1
                        2181 TSM:UPL:OK
                        2183 TSM:READY:ID=101,PAR=0,DIS=1
                        2187 SGN:PRE:SGN REQ
                        2189 SGN:PRE:WHI NREQ
                        2191 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0
                        2195 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0101
                        2203 SGN:PRE:XMT,TO=0
                        2205 SGN:PRE:WAIT GW
                        2207 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-101,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100
                        2213 SGN:SKP:MSG CMD=3,TYPE=15
                        2217 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0
                        2222 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:2.2.0-beta
                        2232 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0
                        2234 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0
                        2248 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-101,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=0,l=1,sg=0:M
                        2254 !SGN:VER:NSG
                        2256 !TSF:MSG:SIGN VERIFY FAIL
                        2258 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0
                        2263 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=11,pt=0,l=13,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:Motion Sensor
                        2273 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0
                        2277 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=12,pt=0,l=3,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:1.0
                        2285 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0
                        2289 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=1,c=0,t=1,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:
                        2295 MCO:REG:REQ
                        2297 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0
                        2301 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=26,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:2
                        2310 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-101,s=255,c=3,t=27,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:1
                        2316 !SGN:VER:NSG
                        2318 !TSF:MSG:SIGN VERIFY FAIL
                        2322 MCO:BGN:STP
                        2324 MCO:BGN:INIT OK,TSP=1
                        1
                        2326 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0
                        2330 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=1,c=1,t=16,pt=0,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:1
                        2338 MCO:SLP:MS=120000,SMS=0,I1=1,M1=1,I2=255,M2=255
                        2344 TSF:TDI:TSL
                        2347 MCO:SLP:WUP=1
                        2349 TSF:TRI:TSB
                        0
                        2351 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0
                        2355 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=1,c=1,t=16,pt=0,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0
                        2363 MCO:SLP:MS=120000,SMS=0,I1=1,M1=1,I2=255,M2=255
                        2367 TSF:TDI:TSL
                        
                        
                        AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • gusG gus

                          Hi!
                          Starting to learn signing. I use a parallell system (with another channel) where I could test signing before I went on my live system. For now I just use soft signing, it works perfect!

                          Now, I just want to test a node (motionsensor) that include:

                          #define MY_SIGNING_REQUEST_SIGNATURES
                          

                          The gateway has no signing feature (it has not gone thru personalition process) In my head, the node shall reject to connect to this gateway, but after the signing fails, it start to send data to the gateway. Did I miss something here?

                          Debug text on node:

                          0 MCO:BGN:INIT NODE,CP=RNNNAS--,VER=2.2.0-beta
                          49 SGN:PER:OK
                          83 SGN:INI:BND OK
                          83 TSM:INIT
                          86 TSF:WUR:MS=0
                          94 TSM:INIT:TSP OK
                          96 TSM:INIT:STATID=101
                          98 TSF:SID:OK,ID=101
                          100 TSM:FPAR
                          102 SGN:SGN:NREQ=255
                          139 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-255-255,s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:
                          684 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-101,s=255,c=3,t=8,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:0
                          690 SGN:SKP:MSG CMD=3,TYPE=8
                          692 TSF:MSG:FPAR OK,ID=0,D=1
                          2148 TSM:FPAR:OK
                          2148 TSM:ID
                          2150 TSM:ID:OK
                          2152 TSM:UPL
                          2154 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0
                          2158 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=24,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:1
                          2168 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-101,s=255,c=3,t=25,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:1
                          2174 SGN:SKP:MSG CMD=3,TYPE=25
                          2177 TSF:MSG:PONG RECV,HP=1
                          2181 TSM:UPL:OK
                          2183 TSM:READY:ID=101,PAR=0,DIS=1
                          2187 SGN:PRE:SGN REQ
                          2189 SGN:PRE:WHI NREQ
                          2191 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0
                          2195 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0101
                          2203 SGN:PRE:XMT,TO=0
                          2205 SGN:PRE:WAIT GW
                          2207 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-101,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100
                          2213 SGN:SKP:MSG CMD=3,TYPE=15
                          2217 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0
                          2222 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:2.2.0-beta
                          2232 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0
                          2234 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0
                          2248 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-101,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=0,l=1,sg=0:M
                          2254 !SGN:VER:NSG
                          2256 !TSF:MSG:SIGN VERIFY FAIL
                          2258 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0
                          2263 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=11,pt=0,l=13,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:Motion Sensor
                          2273 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0
                          2277 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=12,pt=0,l=3,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:1.0
                          2285 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0
                          2289 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=1,c=0,t=1,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:
                          2295 MCO:REG:REQ
                          2297 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0
                          2301 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=26,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:2
                          2310 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-101,s=255,c=3,t=27,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:1
                          2316 !SGN:VER:NSG
                          2318 !TSF:MSG:SIGN VERIFY FAIL
                          2322 MCO:BGN:STP
                          2324 MCO:BGN:INIT OK,TSP=1
                          1
                          2326 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0
                          2330 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=1,c=1,t=16,pt=0,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:1
                          2338 MCO:SLP:MS=120000,SMS=0,I1=1,M1=1,I2=255,M2=255
                          2344 TSF:TDI:TSL
                          2347 MCO:SLP:WUP=1
                          2349 TSF:TRI:TSB
                          0
                          2351 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0
                          2355 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=1,c=1,t=16,pt=0,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0
                          2363 MCO:SLP:MS=120000,SMS=0,I1=1,M1=1,I2=255,M2=255
                          2367 TSF:TDI:TSL
                          
                          
                          AnticimexA Offline
                          AnticimexA Offline
                          Anticimex
                          Contest Winner
                          wrote on last edited by Anticimex
                          #416

                          @gus what is it that you think is not working? Just because your node require signatures does not prevent the node from sending data to your gateway which does not require signatures.
                          And as you can see in the log you get errors about missing signatures (and hence failed verifications) so it looks as expected to me.
                          You could try to paste your log into the log parser to get a easier to read output.

                          Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

                          gusG 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • AnticimexA Anticimex

                            @gus what is it that you think is not working? Just because your node require signatures does not prevent the node from sending data to your gateway which does not require signatures.
                            And as you can see in the log you get errors about missing signatures (and hence failed verifications) so it looks as expected to me.
                            You could try to paste your log into the log parser to get a easier to read output.

                            gusG Offline
                            gusG Offline
                            gus
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #417

                            @Anticimex Ok, just thought when signing failed, the node was halted :confused:
                            So that control mechanism need to be implemented in my sketch then?
                            Great, I will use the log parser!

                            AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • gusG gus

                              @Anticimex Ok, just thought when signing failed, the node was halted :confused:
                              So that control mechanism need to be implemented in my sketch then?
                              Great, I will use the log parser!

                              AnticimexA Offline
                              AnticimexA Offline
                              Anticimex
                              Contest Winner
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #418

                              @gus no, when signing verification fail, the message is just discarded

                              Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

                              gusG 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • AnticimexA Anticimex

                                @gus no, when signing verification fail, the message is just discarded

                                gusG Offline
                                gusG Offline
                                gus
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #419

                                @Anticimex Ahh, now I get it!! Thanks for helping me out here!

                                Cheers

                                AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • gusG gus

                                  @Anticimex Ahh, now I get it!! Thanks for helping me out here!

                                  Cheers

                                  AnticimexA Offline
                                  AnticimexA Offline
                                  Anticimex
                                  Contest Winner
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #420

                                  @gus always :) nice to hear that you have a fully functional signing rig. Happy signing!

                                  Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • ahmedadelhosniA Offline
                                    ahmedadelhosniA Offline
                                    ahmedadelhosni
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #421

                                    Hello @Anticimex

                                    Sometimes it happens that the Serial printing is not correct and it is okay when the baud rate is lower to 57600. I guess the default is 115200 when this error happens.

                                    +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                                    ⸮ M⸮Se⸮so⸮s security p⸮r⸮o⸮alizer ⸮
                                    +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

                                    +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                                    ⸮ C⸮n⸮igur⸮t⸮on set⸮i⸮g⸮ ⸮
                                    +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                                    | * G⸮i⸮e⸮ ⸮e⸮s⸮nali⸮ation/⸮t⸮ra⸮e of key⸮ ⸮n AT⸮H⸮204A |
                                    | * ⸮T⸮HA204A based ⸮e⸮s⸮n⸮l⸮z⸮t⸮o⸮ ⸮
                                    ⸮ * Will l⸮ck ATSH⸮204⸮ c⸮n⸮i⸮u⸮atio⸮ |
                                    ⸮ * W⸮ll no⸮ req⸮i⸮e any UA⸮T co⸮fi⸮m⸮ti⸮ns ⸮
                                    | * ⸮i⸮l ⸮to⸮e ⸮MA⸮ key to A⸮SH⸮204A |
                                    | * Will store ⸮ES ke⸮ to ⸮E⸮R⸮M ⸮
                                    +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

                                    AnticimexA magpernM 2 Replies Last reply
                                    0
                                    • ahmedadelhosniA ahmedadelhosni

                                      Hello @Anticimex

                                      Sometimes it happens that the Serial printing is not correct and it is okay when the baud rate is lower to 57600. I guess the default is 115200 when this error happens.

                                      +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                                      ⸮ M⸮Se⸮so⸮s security p⸮r⸮o⸮alizer ⸮
                                      +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

                                      +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                                      ⸮ C⸮n⸮igur⸮t⸮on set⸮i⸮g⸮ ⸮
                                      +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                                      | * G⸮i⸮e⸮ ⸮e⸮s⸮nali⸮ation/⸮t⸮ra⸮e of key⸮ ⸮n AT⸮H⸮204A |
                                      | * ⸮T⸮HA204A based ⸮e⸮s⸮n⸮l⸮z⸮t⸮o⸮ ⸮
                                      ⸮ * Will l⸮ck ATSH⸮204⸮ c⸮n⸮i⸮u⸮atio⸮ |
                                      ⸮ * W⸮ll no⸮ req⸮i⸮e any UA⸮T co⸮fi⸮m⸮ti⸮ns ⸮
                                      | * ⸮i⸮l ⸮to⸮e ⸮MA⸮ key to A⸮SH⸮204A |
                                      | * Will store ⸮ES ke⸮ to ⸮E⸮R⸮M ⸮
                                      +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

                                      AnticimexA Offline
                                      AnticimexA Offline
                                      Anticimex
                                      Contest Winner
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #422

                                      @ahmedadelhosni yes, this can happen on some targets. It depend on the quality and precision of the oscillator. If output looks garbled, reducing the baud rate is a good place to start.

                                      Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

                                      ahmedadelhosniA 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • AnticimexA Anticimex

                                        @ahmedadelhosni yes, this can happen on some targets. It depend on the quality and precision of the oscillator. If output looks garbled, reducing the baud rate is a good place to start.

                                        ahmedadelhosniA Offline
                                        ahmedadelhosniA Offline
                                        ahmedadelhosni
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #423

                                        @Anticimex so this has nothing to do with the quality of my overall node ? I mean as a reference that this node will be stable or not during operation.

                                        I ordered my atmega smd from mouser and all passive componets too. Only pcbs are from dirtypcbs. I thought getting high quality from mouser would be better.

                                        Thanks.

                                        AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • ahmedadelhosniA ahmedadelhosni

                                          @Anticimex so this has nothing to do with the quality of my overall node ? I mean as a reference that this node will be stable or not during operation.

                                          I ordered my atmega smd from mouser and all passive componets too. Only pcbs are from dirtypcbs. I thought getting high quality from mouser would be better.

                                          Thanks.

                                          AnticimexA Offline
                                          AnticimexA Offline
                                          Anticimex
                                          Contest Winner
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #424

                                          @ahmedadelhosni
                                          That is hard to say. There are many reports of atmega not being really good at handling 115200 at certain oscillator frequencies. So no, I don't think it directly hints at something being wrong with your hardware. But I cannot be sure of course :)

                                          Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          1
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          22

                                          Online

                                          11.7k

                                          Users

                                          11.2k

                                          Topics

                                          113.0k

                                          Posts


                                          Copyright 2025 TBD   |   Forum Guidelines   |   Privacy Policy   |   Terms of Service
                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • MySensors
                                          • OpenHardware.io
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular