AD-HOC/Infrastructue connection & Registry Question...?

Question

If I have 4 computers running on wireless nics in a ad-hoc network, and one of those has both a wireless nic and a Ethernet card with separate ip's. and that computer is also connected into a switch that is connected to 2 other computers in a infrastructure network.
They all are on static ip's with a class 3 subnet and have the same workgroup. The ad-hoc network can see each other on the workgroup and also when you ping arp -a and the hard wired network can see the other computers on the hub while in the workgroup and when i ping arp -a. The computer with both wireless and the ethernet card can see both.
How do i configure the central computer so that when i do "arp -a" on a ad-hoc it sees across the central computer to the hard lined computers and vice versa so that the hard lined computers can see the ad-hoc computers when arp -a is done?
#2: Where in the registry can i change a single 0 to 1 or 1 to 0 zero so that the initial password no longer shows up as asterisks?

also i've tried bridging both connections together and that doesnt work either.
as far as the password. When the computer starts up and u have to enter ur username and password to get into the os. theres a place in the registry where you can change a 0 to a 1 or a 1 to a 0 so that it will show the password you type in, instead of asterisks. I'm not trying to break into anything. im trying to get extra credit for a class

Answer 1

So, you basically have two seperate networks with one ad-hoc connecting them both as a central station. It seems to me that the answer would be to bridge the two networks together and make one network, but it would still leave the ad-hocs not connected to an outside network and safe. This would enable all computers to see each other and be able to also send and receive file transfers. I am unsure which "password" you are referring too, and it would probably be best to change any passwords in the proper applet rather than mess with the registry. What you are asking is for the system to stop hiding the passwords which are typed in, and this would be a security breach which should be avoided. The asterisks are there to protect from instrusion, not only from outsiders, but also from employees or others looking over a Users shoulder while they enter their password.

I never wanted to change this so I don't know where you would do so. Hopefully, if you are serious about breaching this security, somebody else will come along and tell you how. Perhaps there is a setting in Group Policy which would allow you to make this change without going into the registry. Just open Group Policy and look around in Computer sections. I am not saying the setting is there, and I haven't seen one, but I know there is a setting to change the last user who logged on User name from showing up.

Answer 2

individually, i might basically ever evaluate a registry to be effective if it supplied me any insurance of high quality. KC Breed registry supplies little extra advantageous than an insurance that the dogs is of the breed it says it fairly is, and that that is been bred interior of a closed stud e book (btw - i don't evaluate a closed stud e book to be an altogether effective factor). No ensures of well being, skill to do the activity it became initially bred for, or perhaps skill to do a distinctive activity. i assume that the AKC is an identical. Or direction, i gets countless TDs for asserting this, possibly some human beings pointing out wonderful examples of dogs who've had fulfillment interior the coach ring besides because of the fact the sphere. factor is - that isn't the factor. the factor is that there isn't something approximately KC reg to call for that conventional. domestic dog turbines can, and do use the registry. whats up presto, a kite-mark of high quality for an unbelievably poorly bred dogs. ISDS is a valid registry, considering there are demands located upon the skill of the dogs. i could desire to possibly argue a case for the greyhound stud e book, because of the fact it does make some demands upon the well being of the dogs. besides the undeniable fact that, as a breed they are for sure healthy - not many undesirable examples of racing greyhounds exist. i'm not attentive to the different registry that i could desire to argue even a flimsy case for.