Conrad Sallian's community posts

Hi David,

In the case of [censored] there is a "console 9 character ID" that is assigned to the "machine itself", and if you connect to that then it's as if you are sitting at the console of the server. However, each RDP / session (or user profile) also has its own separate 9 character ID. I think it is assigned per user profile?

With Remote Utilities you connect to the same ID and then simply switch to a desired terminal session on the toolbar ("Terminal user switch" icon).

However, if you want each terminal user to have their specific instance of Remote Utilities agent running (and thus have a dedicated connection entry in tech's address book for each terminal user), then you should use Agent instead of Host. Users don't have to re-download the Agent for each session though - they can leave it on their computer and run on demand. Here is a blog post about the differences between Host and Agent.  

I want the same functionality in RU - I want to do a support session with them on their desktop. I *don't* want the RDP behavior of taking over a session and kicking the exisitng user off their session.

That shouldn't happen.

I think TV's way of doing this only works for Internet 9 character connections, not for direct IP connections, because the server will (usually) just have one IP for all users?

An IP address belongs to a network interface rather than to a specific application. I'm no expert in virtualization, but I can guess that it's still possible to set up virtual IP addresses on the same subnet (and hence accessible the same way the server can be accessible) for terminal users/sessions. More on the subject.

Hope that helps.

Hello David,

Thank you for your post.

Remote Utilities allows you to switch between existing/running terminal sessions if that is what you mean.  However, Remote Utilities itself cannot act as Microsoft Terminal Services and create sessions.

Hope that helps.

That sounds interesting, thank you both for your input. We will try to investigate the issue. Perhaps there is something we can do about this.

By the way, a new update has been released today (28 June, 2017), version 6.7.0.1. You can download it from here https://www.remoteutilities.com/download/ . You may try to update Viewer and Host and see if the issue persists with this version too.

Thanks!

Hello Larry,

Thank you for your message.

Is this happening on all Hosts or just a single Host?

Hello Charles,

I'm glad to hear it worked for you!

One thing however, is every time the tablet is restarted, they get the 'remote utilities' notification which we cannot click on.

This message should only appear at first install. Yes, it's not clickable remotely, to avoid rogue use of the software. Only the remote user can click on it. So it appears even after restart , because it was never  clicked.

Is there a registry key to disable that? (Asking as I am being too lazy to check)

We'll soon add a fix that will ensure that this message:

1. Appears upon first connection rather than immediately after installation.
2. When first connection occurs from a Viewer registered with the "per operator standard" or "site license" key, the message will not appear at all.

This will help us find a balance between the needs of pro users who need completely silent install even with Internet-ID enabled (for direct connection a silent install is no problem) and our need to provide a legitimate tool which cannot be used for rogue activities out-of-the-box.

Hello Allan,

Thank you for taking the time to investigate this. We will definitely contact Symantec regarding this detection.

However, it should be noted that it's a grey area. Here is the classification description. Although it says "virus, trojan" this classification uses heuristic methods which are prone to errors. Heuristics isn't a surefire way to say if something is a virus or a trojan. It can only say that there is a probability of this file being a virus given some attributes.

This is a major issue with modern antivirus programs for us and any other remote control software vendor. Our program category is risky by definition. Antivirus programs try to be on the safe side and they will rather warn the user than not. Even if the program is legitimate there is a chance that it is used by a rogue to access a computer, and so the antivirus program's duty is to let the user know about it.

Hello Allan,

It would be nice to have at least a screenshot of that window then. Is that possible?

Hello Jeffrey and Benny,

Actually, RDP (Microsoft Remote Desktop Services) may be the fastest on the market. Not surprisingly, because it comes from the folks who develop the operating system itself.

That said, it only makes sense to compare apples to apples. Namely,

1. If you compare RU's Full Control mode against RDP, you need to use the same connection type. In this case direct connection. It doesn't make sense to compare Full Control over Internet ID with RDP over direct connection.

2. Color depth settings should be the same in both cases.

3. RDP can automatically optimize performance. Currently, RU doesn't adjust performance according to connection speed whereas RDP does.

Still, I'm not saying that RDP isn't faster than Full Control, perhaps it is (due to program architecture and some clever code). I'm only saying that the difference may not be that big if you take into consideration the factors above. Soon we'll implement auto-adjustment too.

All in all, Remote Utilities allows you to get the best of both worlds. So you can work with RDP in RU too, and use RU's powerful address book capabilities to manage your RDP connections. We need to fix that drop issue soon though.

Hello Jeffrey,

Thank you for your message.

I closed the port-forward off, and installed RU on his work PC and home, and it seemed to work fine. Only problem is, anytime there is little to no activity on the RDP session it will drop and "reconnect". This can happen multiple times over a 10 minute span.

This is a known problem when RDP-over-ID is used. This is not about Remote Utilities, more about RDP. But we will see how we can fix or eliminate this problem on our end.

That said, there are a couple questions:

1. If you still want to connect directly using RDP, you could change the RDP port or mask it (using different source and target ports in the port forwarding rule).

2. Why not using Remote Utilities own Full Control connection mode instead of RDP?

Thanks.

Hello Allan,

Thanks for letting us know. Do you know what specific Norton products act this way? We would test and contact Symantec about this.