Re: Terminal services
- From: "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" <lanwench@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:07:08 -0400
In news:620536CB-5DA6-4BD5-9108-4184D6DDC233@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
MCL <MCL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
Pardon my jumping in....
> Using the Remote Desktop Connection, each user uses the same IP with a
> different 4 digit extension separated by a colon. The 4 digit
> extension corresponds to a port??
Yes. He's changed the listening port for each workstation from the default
3389 for some reason. You don't have to do this when you have RWW - you get
to a web page, and choose your workstation by name from there....and you
don't have to have a static LAN IP for each workstation, or fancy firewall
rules set up to each workstation's IP.
> that I guess was first set at the
> server and then set at each workstation through the registry editor
> (only saw part of the setup process). This allows each user to log
> directly to their workstation using the Remote Desktop Connection.
So does https://your.domain.com/remote
> It would be a rare coincidence if more than two people were loging in
> at the same time so I don't think that that is an issue and the use
> of the remote desktop is not that often to begin with.
Then TS may be overkill - still, you don't need the setup he did for you.
>
> We have acessed Outlook through the internet.
How - RPC over HTTPs?
> Is this RWW
No.
> or does
> RWW have more features?
Apples:oranges, again. RWW, RD, TS - none of these give you anything *local*
on the workstation you're sitting in front of - just screen shots. Remote
Outlook means your laptop has a cached copy of your mailbox on it, and you
can connect/update, disconnect from the Internet, and work in Outlook.
> We want to have the ability to access shared
> folders/files on the server as if we were at our individual
> workstations.
Then RWW or TS.
> I like the remote desktop because I can work from home
> as if I was sitting at my workstation in the office, and the back and
> forth response between the two PC's is pretty quick.
Yep.
>
> I just don't think it's necessary to spend all this extra money for
> something we don't need unless there truly is a legitimate security
> issue. What we have now works well for us.
>
Again, it isn't necessarily about security. TS may not be necessary for you.
However, your setup doesn't sound right to me - there is no need to do the
tweaking on listening ports, etc., if you have SBS2003. It's one of the
nicer things about SBS2003 in the first place.
>
>
> "Bill Swan" wrote:
>
>> Hi MCL
>>
>> How are pcs logging into their desktops ? Can you elaborate. User 1,
>> puts in IP address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx using RDP, User 2 puts in
>> different IP address which goes to their own desktop ?. The reason I
>> ask is you mention RDP ( terminal services) when 2003 now has RWW
>> remote web work place which is accessed using an Internet browser.
>> http://www.smallbizserver.net/Default.aspx?tabid=79 (see heading '
>> articles ' to the left)
>>
>> Getting another box to act as terminal server takes the load off of
>> SBS. However SBS only has 2 licenses in administration mode so only
>> 2 users can logon at a time. How many users are there ? Also
>> Terminal server requires TS licenses whereas RWW access is included
>> in SBS.
>>
>> Citrix is a VERY big learning curve which sits ontop of a Terminal
>> Server, so in addition to Terminal Server licenses you need citrix
>> licenses, can be costly and cost needs to warrant neccissity
>>
>> --
>> Thinking of upgrading .. COOL... http://www.sbsmigration.com
>>
>> www.smallbizserver.net (2000 and 2003)
>>
>> microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz2000 (2000 NG)
>>
>> microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs (2003 NG)
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&group=microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz2000
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&group=microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs
>>
>> http://www.sbslinks.com/
>>
>>
>> "MCL" <MCL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:883CC70A-5690-45E2-8B59-B698ACB72FFB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> I'm am prefacing my question by stating that I am not an IT person
>>> and have
>>> limited knowledge about this stuff and would appreciate that any
>>> responses are geared toward the layperson.
>>>
>>> We are running SBS2003 and are using terminal services to login to
>>> our individual workstations from remote locations. This was setup
>>> by our IT consultant. However, he told us that this is not a very
>>> secure way to do this (multiplte open ports in the firewall??, weak
>>> accounts??) and suggested
>>> that we get another server box to act as the terminal server which
>>> is networked into our SBS box.
>>>
>>> Another option was a Citrix solution for loging in from any PC
>>> using a web browser.
>>>
>>> What are the relevant security issues, if any? Comments about the
>>> Citrix solution?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
.
- References:
- Terminal services
- From: MCL
- Re: Terminal services
- From: Bill Swan
- Re: Terminal services
- From: MCL
- Terminal services
- Prev by Date: Re: Terminal services
- Next by Date: Re: Serious domain problem
- Previous by thread: Re: Terminal services
- Next by thread: Re: Terminal services
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
