Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Martin Gregorie Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: application server, just without the "web" part... Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 19:43:59 +0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 19:43:59 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e5160e2be48f1ea550cf61512446f525"; logging-data="1190"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/0SR54unU0jO9erQn1yQ/p30b0Ud0tpzs=" User-Agent: Pan/0.139 (Sexual Chocolate; GIT bf56508 git://git.gnome.org/pan2) Cancel-Lock: sha1:a6ouYY3RpQZH1jWkiRvOG0JS5Rk= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:29897 On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 18:29:57 +0000, Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 17:51:45 +0000, Andreas Leitgeb wrote: > >> Meanwhile that's the remaining part of my problem. The authorization >> should not be part of the protocol, but some local "challenge", that >> only a particular user on the same machine can do. E.g. write to an >> appropriately set up named pipe or unix domain socket. Unfortunately, >> Java doesn't seem to support unix domain sockets without JNI, and named >> pipes have their own bag of downsides. See new thread "java unix >> domain sockets ..." >> > I think you can do what you need with bog standard Java Sockets. > Assuming that this program will be listening for incoming connections on > a ServerSocket, if your first action after ServerSocket.accept() returns > a Socket, is to call Socket.getInetAddress(). You can easily check > whether the InetAddress it returns is a local loopback connection or > not: if it is on the local loopback, the IP address will be 127.0.0.1 or > the IPV6 equivalent. I missed seeing the restriction to specific users on the local box. My bad. Would requiring the authorised users to belong to a specific group help solve the problem? -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |