D-Link Forums
The Graveyard - Products No Longer Supported => Routers / COVR => DIR-655 => Topic started by: wmh on October 01, 2010, 04:23:54 PM
-
It looks like D-Link and SecureSpot's partnership will be officially coming to an end. SecureSpot hasn't been working for some time. So I contacted Bsecure to find out what was happening. I noticed that they were now offering a similar protection independent of D-Link and configurable on almost any wireless router. I decided to go for it and had it up and running in no time. This is a lot more substantial that SecureSpot yet remains very user friendly. I know this is not for everyone, but I am grateful for this level of protection this provides for our family. Below is the message I received from Bsecure:
"Securespot Services has been put in an End Of Life status by D-Link are therefore is longer being offered on the Dlink DSD device or the DIR routers. If you desire to maintain the same level of protection for your family and/or your network we suggest the Bsecure 6.13 product. This product has many of the same options that you were utilizing with Securespot Services and actually includes many more such as Whole Home Filtering that will filter all non-PC devices behind the router. At this time we are offering a 30% discount to those former Securespot customers who convert to BSecure. Please visit http://www.bsecure.com?1077722 (http://www.bsecure.com?1077722) to learn more."
-
... ;D
Can we get a clean SecureSpot-free firmware release now?
-
Can we get a clean SecureSpot-free firmware release now?
Does not matter since you can disable securespot plus if the services are no longer valid then even if enabled nothing would or should happen.
-
Does not matter since you can disable securespot plus if the services are no longer valid then even if enabled nothing would or should happen.
I still want it removed from the firmware.
-
Does not matter since you can disable securespot plus if the services are no longer valid then even if enabled nothing would or should happen.
Yeah. That's what I believe when I first saw the enable/disable checkbox. ::) Seems to me that there are still DIR=655 users having issues with it.
I still want it removed from the firmware.
+1
-
I still want it removed from the firmware.
If you make a well argumented explaination for that wish it would look less like a grumpy demand ;)
-
If you make a well argumented explaination for that wish it would look less like a grumpy demand ;)
It's extraneous code ;)
ex·tra·ne·ous
/ɪkˈstreɪniəs/ Show Spelled[ik-strey-nee-uhs] Show IPA
–adjective
1. introduced or coming from without; not belonging or proper to a thing; external; foreign: extraneous substances in our water.
2. not pertinent; irrelevant: an extraneous remark; extraneous decoration.
-
It's extraneous code ;)
ex·tra·ne·ous
/ɪkˈstreɪniəs/ Show Spelled[ik-strey-nee-uhs] Show IPA
–adjective
1. introduced or coming from without; not belonging or proper to a thing; external; foreign: extraneous substances in our water.
2. not pertinent; irrelevant: an extraneous remark; extraneous decoration.
If you ever looked in the raw source you will find lots of this in the firmware ;) Never heard any complaints about these.
Anyway, you do know that taking things out might do more harm than keeping them in. From an IT perpective that is, which kinda differs from normal people's perspectives...
(won't give you a heads up as to where to look for the explanation 8))
-
If you ever looked in the raw source you will find lots of this in the firmware ;) Never heard any complaints about these.
Anyway, you do know that taking things out might do more harm than keeping them in. From an IT perpective that is, which kinda differs from normal people's perspectives...
(won't give you a heads up as to where to look for the explanation 8))
Isn't the code proprietary, and encrypted? Are you saying you are a developer, an expert in firmware design, and have read the source? If so, please enlighten me, as I am nowhere near the level of being a SOC software designer.
It might cause some issues by removing it, but did you know that it may actually improve the situation instead? I'm still using v1.21 because of the "features" that were made a permanent part of the code (or at least a visible part of the code).
(won't give you a heads up as to where to look for the explanation 8))
If you were kidding, I don't get it, and if you were serious, I have to ask - what grade are you in?
-
Isn't the code proprietary, and encrypted? Are you saying you are a developer, an expert in firmware design, and have read the source? If so, please enlighten me, as I am nowhere near the level of being a SOC software designer.
Do some reading on the board to find out about this. Simple as that.
It might cause some issues by removing it, but did you know that it may actually improve the situation instead? I'm still using v1.21 because of the "features" that were made a permanent part of the code (or at least a visible part of the code).
You don't have to trust me, but removing parts can absolutely do much more harm than it will improve the firmware (primarily since 1.34 has no big issues, see the lack of issues on the board).
If you were kidding, I don't get it, and if you were serious, I have to ask - what grade are you in?
Yawn, you're a funny man. Seriously, you need to grow a sense of humor.