| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
System Center Essentials RC1 Available | |
|
||
| Time: 00:38 EST/05:38 GMT | News Source: Techlog | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
The System Center Essentials team is very pleased to announce the availability of the Release Candidate 1 software on the Microsoft Connect site. We encourage you to promptly download and start testing this exciting release of SCE! What's New in Essentials RC1? | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 164 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:33:14 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 2/21/2007 9:34:02 AM |
| Does anyone know (lketchum, n4cer, anyone?) if the "remote control" functionality is like the remote control client in SMS, or is it more or less a shortcut to Remote Assistance? For our help desk, I'd love to switch to RA, but compared to remote control, it's way too cumbersome. Talking users through the multiple handoffs of RA is just a pain when you know you can go into SMS, hit one button, and boom--you're in control, fix the problem, and you're on to the next call before the RA call has even transferred control. |
| #2 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 2/21/2007 1:06:29 PM |
|
#1, It's more like MSN - where a TLS is/may be used vice RDP/TSAC - similar to how remote is handled in small business server and agnostic as to network/NAT [Microsoft hates NAT almost as much as any of us (from what I read, in any case)]. So yes, it is different and better in that it stuffs the RDP packets in a transport that can work over 80/443, etc... much as Communicator does and now many more protocols [all to kiss the big fart arse of NAT].
In tests, it has a heck of a time with any network using traversals - the unhappy step-child in the NAT family. So internally, we've had to set up acproxy(ies) as at acproxy.<HostFQDN>:TCPIPPORTNumer - example, acproxy.mydomainname.com:443 as the listening URL. Requests are then handed off from the HTTP(S) proxy and routed to the client one is controlling, or as the case might be, the user requesting assistance. Also, [SonicWall] handles NAT a bit differently and creates some configuration issues in a lot of cases - so proxies have to be SW and internal and requests forwarded vice using a device's HTTP proxy. Works well enough, but one begs for IPV6 and enough room/bits per packet to finally, finally, finally, finally... KILL all NAT [I guess one can tell I don't much care for it. I do worry... a lot of typically configured clients would use some form of hardware NAT - ok, I can deal with that, but what of ancient IDENT Port responses on TCP/IP 113? I mean, nothing like telling the planet that one has a network up... by blocking that port. trouble is.... one has to use that dang thing to get service from many ISP's - e.g., like Charter.... or Road Runner, which is common to see in small business. ***There is a fix for that small problem: "Use the port forwarding feature, however rudimentary, in the usually small routers servicing the remote network customer and set the IDENT port TCP/IP to port forward the bloody thing to some way on up there, High-Order port in the router's range. That will "Stealth" it well enough and still allow the customer to use the ISP they have signed up with. Any case, yes, it works, but be prepared to invest a little time in setting up both the proxy one may use as well as the forward for the IDENT port to keep the supported NW properly stealthed. BTW..... Home Server does the same sort of thing as SBS/SCE - kinda cool for remote access. ***We did our own, btw... a little app that passes no real creds, just invokes a jump to the right listener - it's cool and forwards requests for remote access/remote assistance to the proper firewall rules from a web page. If the requesting client system does not have client/TSAC SW installed, it delivers a small package via the browser and sets up a TSWEB connection to support them. |
| #3 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 2/21/2007 4:06:22 PM |
|
#2--thanks for the detailed info! That's a lot to digest.
However, I'm not in the service provider scenario. I'm wondering how well this would work within a single organization. I have only a passing familiarity with SBS, so I'm not sure how the remote control function works there. I guess my question is not so much about the remote control protocols (RDP vs. the SMS-style remote control agent), but whether or not it works like Remote Assistance. My biggest gripe with Remote Assistance is that it requires about three or four dialogs to be answered by the user before actual remote control is granted. I figure that if you have domain admin rights already, you shouldn't need to talk an end user through these dialogs (which always seems to take much longer than it should)--you should be able to take control right now, no delays, no frustration on either your part or the end user's. So, my question is, does the remote control function require end user approval? Or can you go in right away as an admin, as you can with SMS? |
| #4 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 2/21/2007 4:26:30 PM |
|
#3, Great questions - not easy to answer - but the bottom line is, yes, you can. RA (as used here) - not to be confused with another popular "Remote Access" program, will allow you to take remote control of a machine. Be sure to add the /console switch to the path for the executable - so you can a) ensure that you take control of the session as if you were at the console and b) force a log off [provided that is desired].
Also, and you'll dig this!!!! - you can use a snap-in and connect to another machine over the same connection - e.g., open any MMC Snap-In, Connect to.... and you can then admin the machine silently. Please also note that under Vista the rules are even better - In Business, Enterprise and Ultimate, the RDP session manager allows more than one connection - cool for a couple of reasons... you can connect a session and not interrupt the machine, and in the case of Ultimate, it preserves the ability to cache credentials, and still add MCX's [not necessarily relevant to many businesses, but a nice to know/have feature for power users and sysadmins who will likely run Vista Ultimate]. Now what you may not like.... Remote Assistance, and NOT/NOT RDP has been modified and requires even more interaction than before.... Arrggghhh - the requesting user makes a reques - then types in a session password, bound to the session variable and that is sent to the person being asked for assistance. The respondent accepts the invitation, then is presented with a dialog to enter in the agreed to password bound to the session Var.... The user has to attend this and take not of when to enter the session Var password... or it will all time out [rather quickly] and one has to start all over again. It get's worse.... say the user has a NAT that uses a traversal and his/her ISP requires IDENT. Then the home/SOHO router used properly masks the IDENT port.... well.... it will all fail and hard. sadly, in many cases, people are behind a simple Ethernet Bridge w/o IRB and worse, they have routers set up that hand out addresses in the same address space. The solution in this case is to set the small router to hand out addresses in a slightly different address space. So let's say we have a modem/bridge handing out 192.168.0.xx internally - set your small router to hand out, 192.168.5.xx and you'd be fine and the NAT Traverse would not bite you - nor would the miserable power off/on boot in this order business of modem, then router business apply any longer.... Hunt my email at my profile and I'll send you our code for the RA we built up and how it is used. It is super simple, but it get's the job done - best part.... you can set the defaults in XP/Vista TCP Terminal Server to listen on other than default ports - yet make that trasnparent to users... added in case you want to increase the security on remote hosts. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 164 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:33:14 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
