 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:11:02 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Nope, that's Citrix (it may have changed names since MS acquired them
Citrix was not acquired by Microsoft - they're still very much a separate
company. (I know, as I've applied for a couple jobs with them, and know
people who work there)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:27:08 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> I think it's more the general problem of Internet security. If you
> expose a service to the Internet, random people will try to hack it.
> Security is a Hard Problem.
Security is a relatively easy problem. You only allow services that need
to be allowed, and if it's a common service that might be attacked, you
harden against it - using chroot jails, different ports, or tools that
look for failed attempts and block an IP address if too many attempts are
failed.
At least, it's pretty easy on a *nix platform. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/13/2011 3:40, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>> I said that Windows allows it *by default*
>
> So how exactly would I transfer a file to you from my Windows?
RDP to his machine, then use copy/paste on the files.
Or mount \\94.23.84.122\someshare and store the file there.
Both of which are turned on by default.
In either case, you're going to need an account on the destination computer.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/13/2011 1:06, Invisible wrote:
> Yes indeedy. (I also know that they got the usual meanings of "server" and
> "client" backwards too.)
No they didn't. It's just that most people confuse "client" with "what I see."
> Now I haven't tried it, but I'm told is approximately /impossible/ to
> actually configure X so that you can access it remotely.
It's pretty easy if you want to start it after you already logged in via
text console.
> (OTOH, doesn't X allow more than one user to log in at once?
Not really. Remember, client and server are "reversed". You still need one
computer per user, and indeed, I don't know of any modern distro that lets
you lock the screen as one X user and then log in as a different user
without logging out the first one. (Someone tell me if there's a way to do
this with Ubuntu! :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/13/2011 3:25, Warp wrote:
> What kind of configuration did I do to be able to log in into my friend's
> computer and run an app remotely? Or to transfer files for that matter (which
> was the original point)?
You needed an account there, which is all you actually need for Windows too. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/13/2011 3:42, Invisible wrote:
> I'm told it requires spending hours editing the X configuration files
> to set up authentication and so forth, and then to make sure the server is
> started, and then to tell the application you want to run to open on the
> remote machine rather than the local one (by using CLI options that vary for
> every individual program so you have to look them up), and then...
You're about 10 to 15 years out of date.
Back when 256 colors was a high-end graphics card, this is how it worked.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/13/2011 0:30, Warp wrote:
> (If this so "trivial", why haven't I ever heard of this "RDP"? Yes, this
> is the first time in my life I hear of it.
RDP is the Remote Desktop Protocol. You probably have it installed on your
Linux machine under the name "Terminal Services Client." Try firing that up
and connecting to sgf.dnsalias.com. RDP is the new name because TSC was
originally designed for "X-Terminal" like operations on a headless server,
while RDP is generalized to connect to anything.
There's also "remote assistance", which uses the same thing except automates
the security and makes it easier for a naive user to let someone outside
help them out, allowing management of remote requests?
> And it's not like I haven't been
> using Windows pretty regularly for the past 15 years or so. Contrast me
> knowing about tools like rsync, rcp, scp and wget, which arguably are not
> the most obvious things in unix either. What is the difference?)
I don't know. Do you remote login to Windows machines? It's how one does it,
just like "ssh" does it for the UNIX world.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/13/2011 1:21, Invisible wrote:
> Otherwise all
> this traffic would be unencrypted...)
It's encrypted without the VPN. It just uses DH without a cert, so you don't
get warnings about MITM.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/13/2011 3:28, Warp wrote:
> I don't think Windows uses soft links itself either. Soft links are
> supported by NTFS, but I don't think Windows itself uses them for anything.
They've been used for ages by offline storage (i.e., files backed up to tape
that automatically get restored when you try to open them). They're also
used from Vista onwards to move your home directory stuff around, since
there's so many apps that hard-coded "Documents and Settings".
> (After all, Windows has to be able to work if installed on a FAT32 partition
> too.)
Not any more.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/13/2011 1:27, Invisible wrote:
>>> You can thank Windows for this.
>>
>> Nah. You can thank NAT for this.
>
> I think it's more the general problem of Internet security.
No, it's a problem of routing. If you can't address the remote computer, you
can't give it a file, no matter what protocol you use.
>> Note how all of those require a running server on a public IP address.
>
> Well, yes. To perform a data transfer, you need a way to contact the other end.
That's my point. It's nothing to do with Windows vs Linux. It has to do with
public vs private IP addresses.
> I'm told there's a system called UPnP or something which is supposed to
> allow you to automatically bypass NAT.
The local machine still needs to run something that uses upnp to poke a hole
in the firewall.
> It's news to me that you can transfer files with RDP.
Give it a try. Log in remotely, copy a file off your desktop, mouse over the
remote machine, and pick paste.
Some older versions disallow this. It's kind of touchy, as you have to get
the same version at both ends, for example.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
