davis157 Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 We just upgraded three desktops to brand new Mac minis running Mac OS X 10.5.5. On two of the three systems, everything works fine. On the third, we are unable to communicate with the client (v6.2.234) from the server (v7.6.111). When I examine the firewall log on the desktop in question, it is denying access from the Retrospect server, despite the fact that there's an allow rule for retroclient displayed in the Firewall section of the Security pref. pane. I have also confirmed there are no references to pitond, and that the startup item for retroclient in fact references ".../retroclient &". I tried installing client v6.2.229, after uninstalling 6.2.234 with its installer, but we saw no difference in behavior. If we disable the firewall, there's no connectivity problem, but institutional policy requires us to run with the firewall enabled. Any ideas? Thanks, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeDave Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Hi Mike, First of all, it's obvious that you've done your homework on this; readers thank you for that. Boy, Apple sure did screw the pooch with Leopard's application based firewall; I sure do miss ports! That being said, Retrospect is behaving correctly, as the log shows it's the firewall that's denying connectivity. So the question becomes, what's different between the three that work and the one that does not? Are firewall settings identical across all these machines? How about network infrastructure; is the problem machine on a different router/switch then the others? Retrospect uses UDP packets to communicate; is there any possibility that those are being blocked behind the wall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davis157 Posted November 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2008 All three systems have the same connectivity to the server, and there are no intervening firewalls. The Mac OS X firewall settings are the same. (Small correction: there's a total of three systems and two of them are working correctly.) Regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.