Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 7538681
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 30, 20262026-05-30T07:10:58+00:00 2026-05-30T07:10:58+00:00

I have a project which starts a second JVM. Currently I’m using RMI to

  • 0

I have a project which starts a second JVM. Currently I’m using RMI to communicate between the two. Works well on my own machines.

I need to be able to deploy this project on Windows 7 machines where I do not have privileges to change firewall rules.

The registry (launched from within the first JVM on a high arbitrary port) is being blocked from opening a server socket on these machines.

Is there a way to restrict RMI to only listen to local connections; such that Windows firewall will be cool with it?

Alternatively, is there a good alternative IPC approach that will require little functional changes?

Cheers.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-30T07:10:59+00:00Added an answer on May 30, 2026 at 7:10 am

    This is trickier than it appears to be at first. What is wanted is to restrict the IP addresses that the registry is listening on, but not the port. The problem is that the RMI Registry implementation program (rmiregistry) does not in fact provide any mechanism to restrict what IP addresses it listens on; it always listens on every network interface available. There are only two practical mechanisms for restricting this:

    1. Use a firewall rule. This is the normal technique to be honest, but it requires configuration during deployment.
    2. Use a special version of the RMI Registry that applies the restriction to just the right IP address (namely localhost, 127.0.0.1) because Windows doesn’t complain about sockets that can only be reached from the local machine.

    This second option is what I’ll sketch out. It’s actually quite simple to do, since you can delegate most of the complexity to existing classes.

    import java.io.IOException;
    import java.net.*;
    import java.rmi.server.*;
    import java.rmi.registry.LocateRegistry;
    
    public class RestrictedRMIRegistry implements RMIServerSocketFactory {
        public static void main(String... args) throws IOException {
            int port = (args.length == 0 ? 1099 : Integer.parseInt(args[0], 10));
            RMIClientSocketFactory csf = RMISocketFactory.getDefaultSocketFactory();
            RMIServerSocketFactory ssf = new RestrictedRMIRegistry();
    
            LocateRegistry.createRegistry(port, csf, ssf);
        }
    
        public ServerSocket createServerSocket(int port) throws IOException {
            // Tricky bit; make a server socket with bound address
            return new ServerSocket(port, 0, InetAddress.getLocalHost());
        }
    }
    

    The only difference between this and the normal rmiregistry implementation is that that uses the defaults for both the client and server socket factories.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have a project which is source controlled using Subversion and VisualSVN. Since the
I have a project which contains different components that everyone works on. We have
I have a project which has shared functionality between three other projects and have
I have a project which it's domain contain following classes: Courier Customer Food Order
I have a project which exposes object model to use by different types of
I have a project which builds correctly from the command line. On one of
I have a project which has a set of binary dependencies (assembly dlls for
We have a project which had to be radically descoped in order to ship
I have a project which as part of the build process creates an XMLBeans
I have a project which uses a large library residing in its own repository.

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.