Opentalk STST over a single connection

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Opentalk STST over a single connection

Andre Schnoor
Is it possible to use a single connection for STST communication? I'd
like to have a client open a connection to the server but don't want the
client to listen for connections too.

Client firewalls here issue a warning "Do you want to allow application
X to listen for external connections on port Y?" (Leopard for instance,
does this by default). This is confusing and gives the false impression
that the app will act as a server (or worst: a trojan).

Any suggestion?

Andre

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Opentalk STST over a single connection

kobetic
IIUC, then yes, that is possible. Check out the section labeled 'Bidirectional Connection Support' in the 7.5 release notes.

HTH,

Martin

Andre Schnoor wrote:

> Is it possible to use a single connection for STST communication? I'd
> like to have a client open a connection to the server but don't want the
> client to listen for connections too.
>
> Client firewalls here issue a warning "Do you want to allow application
> X to listen for external connections on port Y?" (Leopard for instance,
> does this by default). This is confusing and gives the false impression
> that the app will act as a server (or worst: a trojan).
>
> Any suggestion?
>
> Andre
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Opentalk STST over a single connection

Andre Schnoor
Martin Kobetic wrote:
> IIUC, then yes, that is possible. Check out the section labeled
> 'Bidirectional Connection Support' in the 7.5 release notes.
>
>

Yes. I'm using this configuration already. The server uses the existing
connection to call back to the client and hence there are no firewall
issues.

Anyway, the client still starts listening on a separate port (even if it
is never needed), which causes the warning to appear on Leopard, and
probably also other security tools will report this as a potential danger.

How do I prevent the client to listen on that port at all?

Andre

--

> Andre Schnoor wrote:
>> Is it possible to use a single connection for STST communication? I'd
>> like to have a client open a connection to the server but don't want
>> the client to listen for connections too.
>>
>> Client firewalls here issue a warning "Do you want to allow
>> application X to listen for external connections on port Y?" (Leopard
>> for instance, does this by default). This is confusing and gives the
>> false impression that the app will act as a server (or worst: a trojan).
>>
>> Any suggestion?
>>
>> Andre
>>
>>
>
>

--
Andre Schnoor
Cognitone GmbH
www.cognitone.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Opentalk STST over a single connection

kobetic
Andre Schnoor wrote:
> Anyway, the client still starts listening on a separate port (even if it
> is never needed), which causes the warning to appear on Leopard, and
> probably also other security tools will report this as a potential danger.
>
> How do I prevent the client to listen on that port at all?

Hm, there isn't direct support for such configuration. To achieve this we need to prevent the listener from starting on broker startup, the rest will work fine without it. Sounds like an additional configuration option for "pure clients" is needed.

Martin

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Opentalk STST over a single connection

Andre Schnoor


Martin Kobetic wrote:

> Andre Schnoor wrote:
>> Anyway, the client still starts listening on a separate port (even if
>> it is never needed), which causes the warning to appear on Leopard,
>> and probably also other security tools will report this as a
>> potential danger.
>>
>> How do I prevent the client to listen on that port at all?
>
> Hm, there isn't direct support for such configuration. To achieve this
> we need to prevent the listener from starting on broker startup, the
> rest will work fine without it. Sounds like an additional
> configuration option for "pure clients" is needed.
>
> Martin
>

Yep. Here's a possible solution. I tried it and it works fine. Adding
that functionality to the existing classes is more elegant, but I didn't
want to change the OT classes for now.

Andre

subclass OutgoingConnectionAdaptorConfiguration under ConnectionAdaptorConfiguration:


OutgoingConnectionAdaptorConfiguration>>componentClass
        ^OutgoingConnectionAdaptor

OutgoingConnectionAdaptorConfiguration>>isBiDirectional
        ^true


subclass OutgoingConnectionAdaptor under ConnectionAdaptor:

OutgoingConnectionAdaptor>>isRunning
        ^( state == self pRunning )

OutgoingConnectionAdaptor>>startServer
        "Do not start a server (does nothing)"