Douglas Crawford's community posts

Very nice.
Looking forward to that brilliant solution to the complaints on the "Your computer has been connected in a
remote session" .
Thanks for your diligence on all of these matters with timely and clear informatino.
Great job
Honestly there is no other product I'm nvolved with that is this well managed on the customer front.

>> Windows 10 and later: the notification can be made visible for the remote side only, and invisible on the Viewer side. We are still investigating this option, but most likely it is possible to implement.

That is a cleaver solution! I wish I had suggested it!

I see.  Yes that could be.  I'm running on 3ghz  quad core level equipment.
CPU is not maxed out though.  So would encryption performance really slow this down if
the CPU isn't maxed out?

Well, we haven't reduced our file size so much. The transfer rate is still an issue.
Under 400 KB/Sec?

snk-nick  That was well put, right!  So yes, trying to make the free version work on "customer" premises is not a good thing to do. Anyone supporting users is not using it for personal use!  
However someone using this to support their aged relative from across the country  (a typical use case for free use)  should have a way to create a free but trusted configuration, IMHO, I was suggesting a server at the site of  the relatives  could do that IF creating a server at site would be considered the trusted piece that, upon determining there is a server, would be part of the logic that supresses the message from being displayed.
Seems likely to me creating a server on the network of the target would something that a bad actor would not be able to trick a user into, not as easily as tricking them into installing the host.  RU should be open to ideas on how to create a trusted situation on the free version that would along these lines, Of course, they have better things really to do with their time, so I'm not saying its imperative on them, but it would show good will to consider it.
That would go a long way to dispel the idea that the message is related to generating revenue.
It has been said the message is there because the free version can't be trusted, well, then consider making it trusted, that's all.  I propose the server is the key. Maybe not.

Pauline:
>However, please note that it's possible to point Host to a self-hosted RU Server when using a pre-configured custom >installation package built via the MSI Configurator Tool.
Are you saying that this makes it possible for a bad actor to substitute his own RU Server?
If so, then all bets are off I guess, unless that server is on the network with the hosts and those
hosts detected that fact.  That would be grounds for not display a message, as the server being on that
same network would prove a trusted connection (in my mind)
It might not be unreasonable for a technician to put a RU server on each network that is being managed.
It could be a cheap obsolete machine.  Maybe that has ramifications though with the technicians ability to
to switch the installations they are talking to.

This all makes my head hurt.  But maybe I have something here>
https://www.remoteutilities.com/support/docs/install-and-uninstall/
Would it make sense for all the security messages to go away if a self hosted server is used?
I don't think a bad actor could get a self hosted server into a target network.
Right?
If HOST knows its on a self hosted network, it would suppress the messages.
Then you can be free to protect the installation and running of the server OUT THE WAZOO
so that bad actors can't install one remotely without some on-site direct user interaction.
So all of us who would like to see the security messages go away, just has to create their own server.
Or not use internet IDs at all.

Thank you!  Its going to be less of a problem moving forward because I'll be reducing our average file
size by a lot, but it is curious why the xfer rates are as they are.  It may not be your software...

We are transfering .mp4 files for video playback. They vary in size from 1MB to 5 GB.

Well, I started the transfer and it was in the 1000s of KByte/sec ranges
and settled down to 800 Kbyte.  Definitely better than before, but...
So let me see... 1000 Kbyte,/sec =  1,000,000 Byte/sec ~= 10Mbit/sec, still 1/4 of the 40Mb/sec line speed.
Is that the best I can hope for?  
Do you see configurations that get close to the line speed?
We'll probably have to optimized our file size downward if that's the reality of the File Transfer performance.
This looks like its based on FTP, perhaps that's the limiting factor?
Thanks in advance for the follow up.