If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Bluetooth file sharing....
I have one computer 'A' and another 'B' all with Bluetooth available.
The aim is to transfer files between them. B has two instances of Win10 installed, one Bitlocker protected. I can transfer files successfully except for the Bitlocker-protected one; is Bitlocker a factor mounted or not? Is WiFi-on necessary for Bluetooth transfers? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Bluetooth file sharing....
On 6/28/2019 7:47 PM, Peter Jason wrote:
I have one computer 'A' and another 'B' all with Bluetooth available. The aim is to transfer files between them. B has two instances of Win10 installed, one Bitlocker protected. I can transfer files successfully except for the Bitlocker-protected one; is Bitlocker a factor mounted or not? Is WiFi-on necessary for Bluetooth transfers? I suspect that it is possible on the Bitlocked one, but you do not have the permissions and ownership of the device (Bluetooth) set properly. The permissions and ownership of the files could also be a problem. (I don't use Bitlock) As for the WIFI question. The only thing that Bluetooth and WIFI have in common is the connections are wireless. The difference is that Bluetooth is usually easier to set up than WIFI. I use Bluetooth when my WIFI connection start to act up and I don't have time to trouble shoot the WIFI connection. -- Judge your ancestors by how well they met their standards not yours. They did not know your standards, so could not try to meet them. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Bluetooth file sharing....
Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 6/28/2019 7:47 PM, Peter Jason wrote: I have one computer 'A' and another 'B' all with Bluetooth available. The aim is to transfer files between them. B has two instances of Win10 installed, one Bitlocker protected. I can transfer files successfully except for the Bitlocker-protected one; is Bitlocker a factor mounted or not? Is WiFi-on necessary for Bluetooth transfers? I suspect that it is possible on the Bitlocked one, but you do not have the permissions and ownership of the device (Bluetooth) set properly. The permissions and ownership of the files could also be a problem. (I don't use Bitlock) As for the WIFI question. The only thing that Bluetooth and WIFI have in common is the connections are wireless. The difference is that Bluetooth is usually easier to set up than WIFI. I use Bluetooth when my WIFI connection start to act up and I don't have time to trouble shoot the WIFI connection. Well, let's draw a picture. Wifi ------------------ Wifi (say, Ad Hoc mode, if you can get the address set) BT -------------------- BT (piconet, *may* be working in 1903!) Ethernet -------------- Ethernet (good ole reliable) These aren't the end of the universe of course. A person might be using ICS (Internet connection sharing). WAN ------ comp#1 ------------------- comp#2 Eth ICS (generic) 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.2 There's really no point doing Bluetooth, if the machines are already connected to a router. No ICS is needed with this setup. The Bluetooth experiment would only be needed, if the computers were "sequentially connected" like the diagram above this paragraph. WAN ------ router | \ comp#1 comp#2 The first diagram with all the network options, could "span" the right-hand portion of the second diagram. You could have three network paths between those machines. The "metric" of each path, can help the OS decide where most of the traffic goes (which link). Ethernet probably has a higher metric than Wifi for example, but the metric can be programmed by the user for a different outcome. Bluetooth has five standards. One of the standards introduced a "BT+Wifi" mode, where the BT part handles the pairing kinda stuff, but when a bulk transfer is attempted, it uses the Wifi to do the transfer. Some would consider this cheating. And hard to figure, when the "Wifi" part could do all the lifting, all by itself. And I don't know how "regular" Wifi feels about the "BT+Wifi" mode. I expect you can set up one or the other, but not both. ******* So the previous diagrams seem to leave a lot of permutations and combinations. Hardly something for your first ICS attempt. Too messy. Let's pretend that the second machine is not using its Ethernet connector, and the second machine has the Wifi radio turned off. What can we do with just BT ??? nanoBT nanoBT WAN ------ comp#1 ------------------- comp#2 Eth ICS (generic) 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.2 That will set up a low-bit-rate connection, probably not more than a megabit per second or so (the speed of a floppy diskette - really crappy). In other words, "we do stuff like this as a bar bet" :-/ This is *not* a practical mode. Lumping Bitlocker on top of this, is I suppose "a bar bet on top of a bar bet". We know that once logged into a Bitlocker volume, the window in File Manager should function like any other window. Even if the files come in via File Sharing, when Explorer does a transfer, the Bitlocker volume is open and files should be written to the volume during a file transfer, like any other. The writes are "encrypted". Once the computer shuts down, nobody can see that file on the Bitlocker volume, unless they know the password. How secure is Bluetooth ? We know that Windows File Sharing (SMB) hardly ever uses plaintext. It has a couple of crypto options, one stronger than the other. This was intended, perhaps, to cover File Sharing Over The Internet, so you could not peek at the data in flight. The standards used are not particularly strong, but better than nothing. That would help, if someone had a 2.4GHz software defined radio with the appropriate demodulator and tracking of channel hop pattern, and was sitting in a car outside your house, listening for Bluetooth experiments. ******* How can I have some fun ? Plug a Bluetooth Nano USB dongle into each machine. Find the Bluetooth section in Windows 10 1903 Setup. See if one machine will give a six digit number or so, to "pair" with the other machine. From here on, it's an experiment. Piconet didn't work when I tested it a year and a half ago. Whether the machine will do ICS on its own, and span the gap, and assign 192.168.1.2 to the right-hand computer in the diagram, I don't know if that will work. BT dongles come in three classes. The BT-400 I bought, works at a distance of six feet. And with the low low datarate involved, It's just "bar bet material", a kind of computer joke. But, if you want to try it, I'd love to hear how it turns out with two 1903 machines, to see if MSFT did any work on this. Paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Bluetooth file sharing....
On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 09:47:55 +1000, Peter Jason wrote:
I have one computer 'A' and another 'B' all with Bluetooth available. The aim is to transfer files between them. B has two instances of Win10 installed, one Bitlocker protected. I can transfer files successfully except for the Bitlocker-protected one; is Bitlocker a factor mounted or not? Is WiFi-on necessary for Bluetooth transfers? No, but why not use why-fi? Much faster. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Bluetooth file sharing....
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 21:41:33 -0400, Paul
wrote: Keith Nuttle wrote: On 6/28/2019 7:47 PM, Peter Jason wrote: I have one computer 'A' and another 'B' all with Bluetooth available. The aim is to transfer files between them. B has two instances of Win10 installed, one Bitlocker protected. I can transfer files successfully except for the Bitlocker-protected one; is Bitlocker a factor mounted or not? Is WiFi-on necessary for Bluetooth transfers? I suspect that it is possible on the Bitlocked one, but you do not have the permissions and ownership of the device (Bluetooth) set properly. The permissions and ownership of the files could also be a problem. (I don't use Bitlock) As for the WIFI question. The only thing that Bluetooth and WIFI have in common is the connections are wireless. The difference is that Bluetooth is usually easier to set up than WIFI. I use Bluetooth when my WIFI connection start to act up and I don't have time to trouble shoot the WIFI connection. Well, let's draw a picture. Wifi ------------------ Wifi (say, Ad Hoc mode, if you can get the address set) BT -------------------- BT (piconet, *may* be working in 1903!) Ethernet -------------- Ethernet (good ole reliable) These aren't the end of the universe of course. A person might be using ICS (Internet connection sharing). WAN ------ comp#1 ------------------- comp#2 Eth ICS (generic) 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.2 There's really no point doing Bluetooth, if the machines are already connected to a router. No ICS is needed with this setup. The Bluetooth experiment would only be needed, if the computers were "sequentially connected" like the diagram above this paragraph. WAN ------ router | \ comp#1 comp#2 The first diagram with all the network options, could "span" the right-hand portion of the second diagram. You could have three network paths between those machines. The "metric" of each path, can help the OS decide where most of the traffic goes (which link). Ethernet probably has a higher metric than Wifi for example, but the metric can be programmed by the user for a different outcome. Bluetooth has five standards. One of the standards introduced a "BT+Wifi" mode, where the BT part handles the pairing kinda stuff, but when a bulk transfer is attempted, it uses the Wifi to do the transfer. Some would consider this cheating. And hard to figure, when the "Wifi" part could do all the lifting, all by itself. And I don't know how "regular" Wifi feels about the "BT+Wifi" mode. I expect you can set up one or the other, but not both. ******* So the previous diagrams seem to leave a lot of permutations and combinations. Hardly something for your first ICS attempt. Too messy. Let's pretend that the second machine is not using its Ethernet connector, and the second machine has the Wifi radio turned off. What can we do with just BT ??? nanoBT nanoBT WAN ------ comp#1 ------------------- comp#2 Eth ICS (generic) 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.2 That will set up a low-bit-rate connection, probably not more than a megabit per second or so (the speed of a floppy diskette - really crappy). In other words, "we do stuff like this as a bar bet" :-/ This is *not* a practical mode. Lumping Bitlocker on top of this, is I suppose "a bar bet on top of a bar bet". We know that once logged into a Bitlocker volume, the window in File Manager should function like any other window. Even if the files come in via File Sharing, when Explorer does a transfer, the Bitlocker volume is open and files should be written to the volume during a file transfer, like any other. The writes are "encrypted". Once the computer shuts down, nobody can see that file on the Bitlocker volume, unless they know the password. How secure is Bluetooth ? We know that Windows File Sharing (SMB) hardly ever uses plaintext. It has a couple of crypto options, one stronger than the other. This was intended, perhaps, to cover File Sharing Over The Internet, so you could not peek at the data in flight. The standards used are not particularly strong, but better than nothing. That would help, if someone had a 2.4GHz software defined radio with the appropriate demodulator and tracking of channel hop pattern, and was sitting in a car outside your house, listening for Bluetooth experiments. ******* How can I have some fun ? Plug a Bluetooth Nano USB dongle into each machine. Find the Bluetooth section in Windows 10 1903 Setup. See if one machine will give a six digit number or so, to "pair" with the other machine. From here on, it's an experiment. Piconet didn't work when I tested it a year and a half ago. Whether the machine will do ICS on its own, and span the gap, and assign 192.168.1.2 to the right-hand computer in the diagram, I don't know if that will work. BT dongles come in three classes. The BT-400 I bought, works at a distance of six feet. And with the low low datarate involved, It's just "bar bet material", a kind of computer joke. But, if you want to try it, I'd love to hear how it turns out with two 1903 machines, to see if MSFT did any work on this. Paul The dongle thing on my old machine cost $14. Perhaps I should have bought the $48 one? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Bluetooth file sharing....
Peter Jason wrote:
The dongle thing on my old machine cost $14. Perhaps I should have bought the $48 one? :-) I tried the bar bet challenge. I got my moneys worth. This happens *every time* I try to use Bluetooth. After many trials, *zero* Bluetooth success :-/ ******* There is a thing in the Settings panel, for "sending files via Bluetooth". I didn't bother pursuing that, because that's not necessarily going to give a general purpose Internet connection. The Bluetooth list of profiles, had about five items, and none of them reminded me of "PAN" (personal area network). I paired the two PCs. I used the Direct Connect function, although there is no help text to tell me exactly what that does, and how an "InDirect" connection would be any different. The ICS service was turned off. I turned that on in Services. I plugged in my USB3 to GbE NIC adapter, to add a *third* network to the computer. That causes the Sharing tab on my main Internet connection to show up. In principle, enabling that is supposed to enable ICS. But, because the "drop down" menu is missing, there is no way to assign 192.168.1.1 to the Bluetooth interface. Since my plugin NIC wasn't connected to the router, that's part of the reason it could not make an appearance in the dropdown menu (of the Sharing tab). Then, when some network activity started up on the PC I was working on, it appeared to be DoSvc, I couldn't find a way to stop it... I stopped my experiment. The PC had already been checked in Windows Update and after many ****ing reboots and clicking that ****ing button, it was "up to date", but it just could not stop itself. So I shut the experiment down, pulled the SSDs, put all the nano BTs in their boxes, and now I'm back to "normal config" again. When I run Win10 on this machine, I have to unplug all the other hard drives, so Win10 won't ruin the NTFS partitions (mess up $MFTMIRR, mess up $BITMAP or so). Honestly, working with Windows 10 is like working with Ebola in a microbiology lab. Good luck with your bar bet experiment :-) And no, spending more money on BT dongles, isn't going to help. I was assured by the software that it could "see" the other PC, because it knew the name of the PC and everything. Each PC could see the other PC. The RF part of this is working. The software stack is a mess. And you can tell 7000 employees are working on this, because controls are all over the place. Now I'm going to have to backtrack, and see if I can find the reference that claimed MSFT had been working on the networking over BT part of this. Because I believe when I tried a similar experiment to this a year and a half ago, I got about as far as I did this time. If I do "ipconfig" in Command Prompt, both adapters had APIPA addresses (169...), so they *did* appear to be interested in networking. But unless I can get ICS working, and get the BT to show up in the dropdown menu of "Sharing" (ICS), I'll never be able to route proper IP addresses in there. And I did have to turn on the ICS service, and that's the reason the "Sharing" tab finally showed up. I can't think of what else to turn on. If the BT wants to "play" as a network, it should register to be in that damn drop down menu (that is missing). I think as soon as one of the networks is a candidate, then the dropdown would appear. I would much rather always have the dropdown appear, and the list be empty or something, as at least then I could be sure it hadn't registered. This "peek-a-boo" design style these idiots are using, *really irritates me*. *Now I wanna punch somebody* Paul |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Bluetooth file sharing....
Paul wrote:
I tried the bar bet challenge. I got my moneys worth. This happens *every time* I try to use Bluetooth. After many trials, *zero* Bluetooth success :-/ I just run fsquirt.exe and t' job's a good'un Probably only applies when using the MS BT stack. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Bluetooth file sharing....
Lucifer wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 09:47:55 +1000, Peter Jason wrote: I have one computer 'A' and another 'B' all with Bluetooth available. The aim is to transfer files between them. B has two instances of Win10 installed, one Bitlocker protected. I can transfer files successfully except for the Bitlocker-protected one; is Bitlocker a factor mounted or not? Is WiFi-on necessary for Bluetooth transfers? No, but why not use why-fi? Much faster. Ditto. I treid that in 2016. It was SO slow. Frak BT 4 file transfers. :P -- Quote of the Week: "Oh, look what Kyle got me, it's a red Mega... Ants in the pants? Ants in the pants?! Ants in the Pants?!! ..." --Eric Cartman in South Park's Damien Episode (Season 1; Episode 8) Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly. /\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org / / /\ /\ \ http://antfarm.ma.cx. Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. | |o o| | \ _ / ( ) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Bluetooth file sharing....
Ant wrote:
Lucifer wrote: On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 09:47:55 +1000, Peter Jason wrote: I have one computer 'A' and another 'B' all with Bluetooth available. The aim is to transfer files between them. B has two instances of Win10 installed, one Bitlocker protected. I can transfer files successfully except for the Bitlocker-protected one; is Bitlocker a factor mounted or not? Is WiFi-on necessary for Bluetooth transfers? No, but why not use why-fi? Much faster. Ditto. I treid that in 2016. It was SO slow. Frak BT 4 file transfers. :P What profile did you use ? Was it a transfer between a Windows PC and an Android mobile ? I get the feeling that connections to SmartPhones would "just work", whereas my attempts to get two PCs to do anything meets with nothing but "resistance". Paul |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Bluetooth file sharing....
On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 09:47:55 +1000, Peter Jason wrote:
I have one computer 'A' and another 'B' all with Bluetooth available. The aim is to transfer files between them. Transfer them _slowly_. -- s|b |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Bluetooth file sharing....
Andy Burns wrote:
Paul wrote: I tried the bar bet challenge. I got my moneys worth. This happens *every time* I try to use Bluetooth. After many trials, *zero* Bluetooth success :-/ I just run fsquirt.exe and t' job's a good'un Probably only applies when using the MS BT stack. Well, I didn't win the bar bet challenge. And all I could manage is a runner-up prize. 1) I managed to use pcattcp to check transfer rate between the two BT dongles. The dongles claimed 3Mbit/sec, and I got around 175KB/sec of actual measured transfer over TCP/IP. 2) I tried your fsquirt. Which does not register as "network bandwidth" on the BT entry in Task Manager. That suggests some other profile is used for that. What I'd hoped, is that somehow the setup of this would be "easy-peasy". It wasn't particularly. https://i.postimg.cc/W3WtBTNm/transmit.gif https://i.postimg.cc/jdJCFpGN/receive.gif And I still couldn't get ICS working properly, which is why I had to use static addresses for the TCP/IP tests. The BT is enough of a device to earn a "networking" entry in Task Manager, but isn't a candidate for the ICS drop-down menu. What I wanted to see, was an absurdly slow file listing of a file share :-) The test file I fed to FSQUIRT threatened to take 1.5 hours to transfer over BT, so I shut it all down again. Paul |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Bluetooth file sharing....
Paul wrote:
I tried your fsquirt. Which does not register Â*Â* as "network bandwidth" on the BT entry in Â*Â* Task Manager. as far as I'm concerned, it's pretty rare to configure a network stack (realistically TCP/IP) over the virtual bluetooth network adapter, which is what I believe it would need to show up an NIC bandwidth in task manager. The test file I fed to FSQUIRT threatened to take 1.5 hours to transfer over BT It's kind of ok for photo sized files, then it gets silly, nowadays I just let my phone sync all photos to a cloud provider, and they're accessible from PCs before you can blink. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|