[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

19990831: XCD, LDM & Firewalls (cont.)

This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.

  • Subject: 19990831: XCD, LDM & Firewalls (cont.)
  • Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 11:04:27 -0600
>From: "Batson, Bryan" <address@hidden>
>Organization: JSFC
>Keywords: 199908302231.QAA22182 LDM firewall

Bryan,

>Port 388 probably isn't as much of a problem to us as port mapper (port 111)
>is. That opens up a whole different can of worms as far as evil-do'ers are
>concerned.

Right.  That is the whole reason for firewalls.

>I am curious about a machine that "sits on both sides of the firewall".

There are many sites that have a machine that sits on two ethernets:
one is inside the security perimeter and one is outside.

>Site contacts for both solutions would be helpful, if you have them.

Any/all questions should be sent to address@hidden and we will
farm them out to people who can answer AND are here.  The problem with
emailing people directly is that they may be on travel, so you end
up waiting for a response to a question when someone else could have
provided the solution to the problem at hand.

>Yes, you remember correctly about the LDM discussion for Cape->JSC data
>transfer.  We (Brice/Mark Wehman) were able to develop a system that
>borrowed code from our custom async ingestor to do the transfer function
>that fit in the best with our existing ingest/decode package (there was no
>security issue since we network over private LAN).   LDM would probably be
>well suited to an upcoming change to the Cape data stream, but it may be out
>of scope for the USAF's contractor to implement it.   

OK.  It may seem like I am pushing the LDM (and I am ;-), but I don't do
this for/to sites that don't appear to be suitable candidates for its use.

>Sigh.
>
>Thanks for the information,

No problem.

Tom