From: Phil S. <ph...@sh...> - 2003-02-28 23:38:03
|
On Friday 28 February 2003 21:29, Raymond Kennington wrote: Hi, > > Thats a Firewall issue not a FB one. FB needs to bind to a port to > > accept client connections, and if the Firewall shows a message, it will > > need to be configured to allow/ignore FB. > > FB has no need to access the network connection when the server and the > client are on the same m/c, nor any other network for that matter. Depends if you talking about the server or client. And depends on your connection string. If you use <server>:<path> to connect, it uses TCP/IP, and for that to work, the server needs to be listening on a port > Surely it doesn't require TCP/IP installed to run locally? If you use the memory mapped file way of connecting(e.g. just a path name), then, no it does not need TCP/IP, but the server listens on a TCP/IP port anyway. Although it seems this can be turned off in current betas > Did Interbase 5? Yes. At least there was no setting to turn it off. > I think not, for TCP/IP was not installed, only NetBEUI. I've never had to > configure a port. The install does this for you. > What happens if no network files at all are installed on a standalone m/c? > Will FB still work? No, and neither will IB (not counting the current beta) > I really do want my users to be able to not worry about others getting > access to their database if they don't have a firewall installed that warns > them. If they have a decent firewall, only ports they explicity allow should be exposed to the 'outside'. If they have not got a decent firewall, there is more to worry about than people accessing a FB server <g> > Meanwhile, I've configured the firewall to not allow FB to be a server on > my own m/c. FB has to run as as server (so clients can connection), so I guess you have closed the external port? (why was it open in the first place?) Phil -- Linux 2.4.4-4GB 9:22pm up 46 days, 3:11, 1 user, load average: 0.08, 0.26, 0.18 |