Skip to main content
Information Security

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • 14
    Don't remove the pin, remove the wire in the cable. You never know when you might want to use that port for something else later. Commented Dec 15, 2020 at 14:32
  • I've done this on several occasions, it's easy and inexpensive. Your transfer speed is a bit limited, but still plenty fast for many use cases. Commented Dec 15, 2020 at 16:04
  • 3
    @user253751 I had intended to mean that the pin in the cable be removed, but that is a good clarification. For astandard PC serial port, the cable usually has pins and the PC side is usually a sockets. Commented Dec 15, 2020 at 16:43
  • I don't think you need to remove TX, which could be needed for flow control. An exploit that usefully alters an already-running program that has exclusive access to B's serial port, as well as a new incoming serial handler on A to exfiltrate, seems basically impossible. If eve could devise that, you might as well give up. Commented Dec 15, 2020 at 22:14
  • 3
    @dandavis The TX is not needed for flow control, flow control is done over pins RTS and CTS, which could be skipped like the other pins. If missing, the transmitter doesn't know if the target has enough space in its buffers. You really only need GND and RX with serial on side A, and TX and GND at the other side. (Source: I have 2 USB to serial adapters laying around here, and this is the bare minimum needed to make 2 devices talk) Commented Dec 17, 2020 at 16:38