NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Peter Laws wrote:
Tyler Allison wrote:I've run LDM without portmapper/rpcbind given they are both ginormous security risks. It delays the startup/shutdown and other admin functions since LDM tries to RPC but fails, then it tries again, etc...until it figures out it is never going to work and defaults to 388 and everything works fine afterwards. Personally, I'd rather see it assume 388 and fall back to portmapper/rpcbind in the event of 388 failure, but that's just me :)Actually, Steve E wrote to me off-list and indicated that this is exactly how it works. Change in the code at some point??
Probably not a huge concern to allow localhost portmapper connections is it? For upstream hosts, if you specify the portnumber in the request, does it still contact portmapper?
REQUEST EXP upstream:port daryl
ldm-users archives: