Re: SBS2003 - Terminal Server - RWW too many steps

KJ,

in-line....


"kj [SBS MVP]" <KevinJ.SBS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u87CIfevIHA.5244@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cary Shultz wrote:
Good afternoon!

Okay, asking a stupid question because we have a client that does not
want to use RWW to connect to the Terminal Server because it "is too
many steps and takes way to long to get there". They want a shortcut
on the desktop that takes them to the Terminal Server. Anything more
than that is unacceptable. I am not sure that I understand why RWW
is unacceptable. They say that it takes too long!

[begin rant] This is one of the major problems with us in the USA. We all
seem to want instant gratification and if something takes 20
seconds to do then we do not want to do it. [end rant]

Anyway, just a few questions regarding this (not asking if it is a
good idea or not...just how to best do this):

1) thinking that I can just change the listening port on the TS from
3389 to something else and then create a shortcut on their desktop
pointing to "IP Address:something else".

Now, this will most probably break accessing the TS via RWW. Apparently,
this is not a problem for them. It is for me, but I do
not count.
2) redirect RDP traffic on the Firewall from the SBS machine to the
Terminal Server. No one accesses the SBS2003 machine via RDP anyway.

Now, this would remove our ability to access the SBS2003 box via RDP
but we have management software on all machines in the environment so
remote access - per se - is not an issue. Doing this would simply
remove the ability to directly access the SBS2003 box externally via
RDP.
Of these two ideas which one is "better"? With "better" meaning fewer
negatives.

1 requires you to modify the listening port and add a redirect plus breaks
RWW (note that internal users will also need to use the alternate port)

So, as I expected, this would be a poor solution and would paint us in a
corner for things later down the road. I would not be interested in that
solution.


2 requires the same port redirect, does not require a listening port mod
and doesn't break RWW.

This sounds like the better solution as it does not break RWW. Which, to
the user base, is irrelevant. But, I do not want to remove that as an
option for things down the road. It is the guys in Sales that have the
problem with RWW. The "office guys" have no problem with it....

Both have the same problem with RDP exposed. If you do so, make sure
passwords are strong, changed often and you should be using the newest
RDP clients with policies to require them.

You are kidding, right! This client has not changed password in five years
and will not entertain that thought. Additionally, the passwords are about
as weak as you can expect....and there is little to no chance of that
changing, either.

I know for a fact that they all have the latest version of the RDP client
because I just had all 16 of the laptops in my hands on Friday.

As to a 'computer use policy' - we have been trying to get them to implement
one for the year that we have been managing them but that is falling on deaf
ears. But, with them that is not a surprise. Unfortunately. I think,
though, that we might be getting closer to that. Ultimately, all we can do
is consult and let them tell us what they want to do. And then implement
safegaurds to mitigate the potential iss side-effects of their decisions!



I really really really really do not understand how RWW "takes too
long". And, to clarify, I am familiar with the "options" page
potentially taking a long time to load...this is not part of the
"problem" for them.
NOTE: the "options" page being where the user - after supplying
credentials - is presented with the "connect to e-mail, connect to my
company's application sharing computer, etc." page.

Thanks,

Cary

--
/kj


Thanks!

Cary


.

Relevant Pages

  • RE: RWW question - SBS2003 Standard
    ... please understand that all RWW sessions relies on both ... ActiveX and RDP. ... When a user logs on RWW, and requests connect to a client ... If yes, the RDP session will not be opened in IE, instead, it ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: SBS2003 - Terminal Server - RWW too many steps
    ... asking a stupid question because we have a client that does not want to use RWW to connect to the Terminal Server because it "is too many steps and takes way to long to get there". ... No one accesses the SBS2003 machine via RDP anyway. ... this would remove our ability to access the SBS2003 box via RDP but we have management software on all machines in the environment so remote access - per se - is not an issue. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: RWW and Remote desktop stopped working on all clients
    ... script would do this, so I changed the administrator account to not use that ... ONE machine I was able to connect to via RDP, logged in as admin, and almost ... I still am unable to connect to the client via RDP. ... As I said earlier I can connect to any of the servers either via RWW or ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • RE: Not able to connect to client from RWW page
    ... do you have ISA server or router installed in front of the SBS ... Ask the problematic client log on a good workstation, ... Please fully explain "cannot connect to RWW page directly" and "The one ... Microsoft CSS Online Newsgroup Support ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • RE: Problem with RWW
    ... In the RWW, on the computer selection page, click "Optional Settings" ... and switch the screen size from "Full screen" to a different resolution. ... The problem is occuring with two separate client machines. ... I can access the terminal server from within the network ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)