|
|
|
|
|
Posted by on April 14, 2006, 5:54 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
I'm really sorry, didn't know google groups does the multi-post.
|
|
Posted by Logan Shaw on April 14, 2006, 7:50 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
gmu2006@gmail.com wrote:
> it's not manchine-local only, it's also used network-wide.
The confusion probably comes from the fact that on Windows (with
NetBIOS), named pipes are a network IPC mechanism, whereas on
Unix, there is also something called named pipes, but it is a
different mechanism and it only works within one machine (the
namespace for the pipes is the local filesystem).
You didn't state it, but when you said you used TCP instead of
named pipes, you probably meant you replaced the existing Windows
named pipes with TCP when porting rather than choosing TCP over
Unix named pipes when evaluating the choices for IPC on Unix
(which is what I thought you meant at first).
- Logan
|
|
Posted by CBFalconer on April 14, 2006, 9:18 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>
> it's not manchine-local only, it's also used network-wide.
Not only have you repeated this, but it is totally incomprehensible
and useless. What is 'it', etc. Include context. Google is NOT
usenet, it is only a poor broken interface to usenet. There is
never any guarantee that any other message is visible to your
reader, so your article has to stand by itself. For means of doing
this on the foul google interface, see below.
--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>
|
|
Posted by on April 15, 2006, 7:50 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> gmu2006@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > it's not manchine-local only, it's also used network-wide.
>
> Not only have you repeated this, but it is totally incomprehensible
> and useless. What is 'it', etc. Include context. Google is NOT
> usenet, it is only a poor broken interface to usenet. There is
> never any guarantee that any other message is visible to your
> reader, so your article has to stand by itself. For means of doing
> this on the foul google interface, see below.
first of all thanks for the reply hint. moreover I will only use
comp.programming
instead of cross-posting. sorry for the SPAM.
now to what I mis-wrote: yes the IPC is used between real hosts via
network.
'it' is IPC.
|
|
Posted by Casper H.S. Dik on April 15, 2006, 10:43 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>gmu2006@gmail.com writes:
>> Introduction:
>> I'm working on a commercial product which was ported from
>> win32 to GNU/Linux. While doing so we have used TCP/IP
>> sockets instead of Named Pipes for IPC. By doing so
>> we've lost the big advantage of having DACLs set on the
>> named pipes that prevent unauthorized access to the
>> services.
>If you use Unix domain sockets instead of TCP/IP, you can use standard
>filesystem permissions to protect them.
No, you cannot depend on file permissions to protect Unix domain
sockets, not unless you use the file permissions to protect the
directory in which the socket resides. Some implementations allow
for permissions on sockets, but they cannot be relied upon.
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | SSL Server authentication, SSL client authentication, SSL connection and SSL session | August 14, 2006, 1:05 pm |
| WEP authentication, why WEP authentication scheme is flawed and how it can be attacked | August 1, 2006, 12:51 pm |
| IKE authentication | June 11, 2004, 8:50 am |
| P2P Authentication | October 25, 2005, 6:42 am |
| authentication | September 21, 2006, 5:45 pm |
| Sign On Authentication | August 15, 2005, 7:56 pm |
| RSA SecurID authentication details | July 16, 2004, 12:53 pm |
| AD authentication via Nortel 450 switch | December 21, 2004, 1:17 pm |
| Question about IKEv2 authentication | May 3, 2006, 4:46 pm |
| 802.1x machine authentication without directory | October 30, 2006, 4:15 pm |
|
|
|
XML site map