RE: Re: Remote connections
From: John Fleming (jfleming_at_creativeventuresofboca.com)
Date: 10/19/04
- Previous message: Joshua Feek: "Re: RE: Can we really block users from installing applications through Group policy?"
- In reply to: Laura Robinson: "Re: Re: Remote connections"
- Next in thread: Erick Waldchen: "RE: Re: Remote connections"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: "'Laura Robinson'" <larobins@verizon.net>, "'GuidoZ'" <uberguidoz@gmail.com>, <focus-ms@securityfocus.com> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:03:46 -0400
Aside from creating a VPN tunnel and then performing a Remote Desktop
session, the only other secure way that I was taught, but never tested
was through SSL.
Aparently there is a Remote Desktop Web Connection feature that can be
installed with IIS 6.0. This can act as a gateway to 2000 and 2003
Server Terminal Services and XP and 2003 server Remote Desktop machines.
You communicate through HTTP port 80 or SSL 443. Terminal Services Web
Connection is installed on the web server to a Virtual Directory called
TSWEB. It is supposed to act as a gateway between the client and
terminal server. Like I said, I have never tried it, but would love to
hear some input on it if anyone has.
Regards,
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Laura Robinson [mailto:larobins@verizon.net]
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 5:34 PM
To: GuidoZ; focus-ms@securityfocus.com
Cc: bugtraq@planetcobalt.net; paviles@adjoined.com
Subject: Re: Re: Remote connections
> > Why not? I don't know of any current exploit for RDP set to high
> > encryption, and even if there were any, connections may very well be
> > shielded by encrypted tunnels.
>
> I'm not aware of any currently either, but as their track record
> proves, that's meaningless.
RDP has been around and used for *years*. Just because Microsoft makes
something doesn't inherently mean that it is broken and requiring of a
knee-jerk bigoted approach to it.
> > RDP can be tunneled thru SSH as well and has much better performance
> > than VNC (don't know about Radmin).
>
> This may very well be true. I'm not up to par as much as I'd like on
> RDP, although I'm quite well learned on VNC and such. TightVNC has
> some of the best compression I've ever seen on a remote control app,
> I've used TightVNC through Dial-up many a times without delay or a
> problem. I'd love to see RDP perform the same feat.
Um, it does. I've done it many, many times. And RAdmin is garbage as far
as what it does to the machine on which it's running unless you remember
to crank down its refresh rate to a near-nonexistent level.
>
> But I digress. Again, I very well could be wrong about RDP. I've
> always leaned towards other remote control programs due to problems
> that usually arises with proprietary programs. (I've been using a form
> of WinVNC since before RDP was even thought of.)
Don't be too sure- do you know where RDP came from? With that said, I
think it's time for you to take a look at it before making what you
admit are biased statements about it. Never comment on something you've
not used is usually a good approach, I find.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Previous message: Joshua Feek: "Re: RE: Can we really block users from installing applications through Group policy?"
- In reply to: Laura Robinson: "Re: Re: Remote connections"
- Next in thread: Erick Waldchen: "RE: Re: Remote connections"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
