Fork of BLE_SecureHeartRate : should this 'work' i.e. require a secure connection on an nRF51-DK? Hopefully I'm just missing something obvious - or is this broken?
Dependencies: BLE_API mbed nRF51822
Fork of BLE_SecureHeartRate by
Diff: main.cpp
- Revision:
- 9:b1cde75ccbbc
- Parent:
- 8:32cdc49c027e
- Child:
- 10:d391a5f1df7c
--- a/main.cpp Tue May 24 12:04:42 2016 +0000 +++ b/main.cpp Tue May 24 15:15:03 2016 +0000 @@ -86,8 +86,8 @@ /* Initialize BLE security */ bool enableBonding = true; bool requireMITM = true; - uint8_t pass[6] = {'1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6'}; - ble.securityManager().init(enableBonding, requireMITM, SecurityManager::IO_CAPS_NONE, pass); + uint8_t pass[6] = {'1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6'}; + ble.securityManager().init(enableBonding, requireMITM, SecurityManager::IO_CAPS_DISPLAY_ONLY, pass); // to see if the behaviour is any different, try claiming we have Keyboard & Display capability on this peripheral // also making sure to no longer specify a static password //ble.securityManager().init(enableBonding, requireMITM, SecurityManager::IO_CAPS_KEYBOARD_DISPLAY, NULL);