Reply To: Subject: Re: Connection Refused - 10061 (Roland
Sippel)
CWS2
cws2 "at" earthlink.net
Thu Apr 7 13:52:18 2005
Roland,
I'm no expert, but it looks as if there is an authentication issue with the
W2k box.
You might check and see if there is a local security policy running that
would prevent [or refuse] TCP/IP or socket connections.
Basis: Using Windows Explorer, you are connecting and "authenticating" your
notebook [which I assume is the same machine
your using for the VNC client] to the W2K box. After authentication, the
W2K box accepts TCP/IP or socket connections from the laptop.
Mike.
> [Original Message]
> From: <vnc-list-request "at" realvnc.com>
> To: <vnc-list "at" realvnc.com>
> Date: 4/7/2005 9:01:36 AM
> Subject: VNC-List digest, Vol 1 #1308 - 3 msgs
>
> Send VNC-List mailing list submissions to
> vnc-list "at" realvnc.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> vnc-list-request "at" realvnc.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> vnc-list-admin "at" realvnc.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of VNC-List digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. add settings from command prompt (Kevin Loyens)
> 2. Re: Connection Refused - 10061 (Roland Sippel)
> 3. RE: What good is VNC's GPL? (Steve Bostedor)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> From: "Kevin Loyens" <kloyenz "at" telenet.be>
> To: <vnc-list "at" realvnc.com>
> Subject: add settings from command prompt
> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 22:24:53 +0200
>
> Hello,
>
> I start the server from the command prompt but how can i add any options
> trough the command promt ?
>
> i did this: winvnc4.exe -noconsole and this works but the following didnt
> work: winvnc4.exe -noconsole DisableEffects=1
>
> how can i change or add these attributes from the command prompt ?
>
>
> Thnx
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.4 - Release Date: 6/04/2005
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 22:30:40 +0200
> From: <rs "at" kunstbar.tv>
> To: vnc-list "at" realvnc.com
> Subject: Re: Connection Refused - 10061
>
> I have check the router (LINKSYS WRT54G). There are no settings for
LAN-Adresses.
> All local Ports are open, only Ports from -Internet- to local are all
closed.
> (Only need if you use a Gamingserver)
>
> strangely:
> - I start W2k and see Login-Mask
> - VNC Client to W2k: Connection Refused - 10061
> - Ping from Client to W2k: okay
> - I use Win-Explorer! from Notebook to a shared Networkdrive on W2k: okay
> - VNC Client to W2k: NOW OKAY, works!
>
> reproduce every time!
> VNC works after a connection from Win-Explorer to a shared Networkdrive
on W2k
>
> What is this?
> Roland
>
>
> John Aldrich schrieb:
> > Roland:
> > The reason I'm thinking it's the router is because when you "add new
client"
> > YOU are initiating the connection, not the other way around. Also when
you
> > "add new client" you're using a different port number. What would it
hurt to
> > check the router settings?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roland
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 10:20 AM
> > To: John Aldrich
> > Cc: vnc-list "at" realvnc.com
> > Subject: Re: Connection Refused - 10061
> >
> >
> > I think it is NO problem of the router.
> >
> >>!!VNC Client connect works AFTER "Add New CLIENT" at VCN-Server!!!
> >
> > After this i have:
> > TCP 172.18.1.130:5800 172.18.1.130:5800 Listen
> > TCP 172.18.1.130:5900 172.18.1.130:5900 Listen
> >
> > I need no change on router for work.
> > Roland
> >
> >
> > John Aldrich schrieb:
> >
> >>Possibly need to open ports 5800 and 5900 in the router?? I'm guessing
> >
> > your
> >
> >>router allows outbound connections on any port to have data come back
in,
> >>but you probably don't have ports 5800 and 5900 open on the router. In
any
> >>case, I'm not a big fan of leaving VNC ports open on the router myself.
I
> >>would, personally, recommend using a different port on the outside and
> >>port-forwarding that to 5800 and 5900 INSIDE the router.... i.e. port
9999
> >>would forward to 5800 on your win2k box and port 9998 would forward to
> >
> > port
> >
> >>5900 on your win2k machine. Another alternative would be set up some
sort
> >
> > of
> >
> >>tunnel, either VPN or SSH or something like that. Just a friendly
> >>suggestion. :-)
> >> John
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Roland
> >>Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 6:26 AM
> >>To: vnc-list "at" realvnc.com
> >>Subject: Connection Refused - 10061
> >>
> >>
> >>I have problems with VNC 4.1.1:
> >>Connection Refused - 10061, after start W2k Prof. SP4
> >>
> >>a) enable as service is active, start automatically at boot
> >>b) NO Connect possible at Win2k login-Mask
> >>c) "telnet 172.18.1.121 5900" not work
> >>d) after Login as Administrator the follow netstat:
> >>
> >>Proto Locale Adress Remoteadress Status
> >>TCP 0.0.0.0:7 0.0.0.0:0 Listen
> >>TCP 0.0.0.0:9 0.0.0.0:0 Listen
> >>TCP 0.0.0.0:13 0.0.0.0:0 Listen
> >>TCP 0.0.0.0:17 0.0.0.0:0 Listen
> >>TCP 0.0.0.0:19 0.0.0.0:0 Listen
> >>TCP 0.0.0.0:135 0.0.0.0:0 Listen
> >>TCP 0.0.0.0:445 0.0.0.0:0 Listen
> >>TCP 0.0.0.0:1025 0.0.0.0:0 Listen
> >>TCP 0.0.0.0:1026 0.0.0.0:0 Listen
> >>TCP 0.0.0.0:5800 0.0.0.0:0 Listen
> >>TCP 0.0.0.0:5900 0.0.0.0:0 Listen
> >>TCP 0.0.0.0:18350 0.0.0.0:0 Listen
> >>TCP 127.0.0.1:1028 127.0.0.1:18350 Waiting
> >>TCP 172.18.1.121:139 0.0.0.0:0 Listen
> >>UDP 0.0.0.0:7 *:*
> >>UDP 0.0.0.0:9 *:*
> >>UDP 0.0.0.0:13 *:*
> >>UDP 0.0.0.0:17 *:*
> >>UDP 0.0.0.0:19 *:*
> >>UDP 0.0.0.0:445 *:*
> >>UDP 172.18.1.121:137 *:*
> >>UDP 172.18.1.121:138 *:*
> >>
> >>Ethernetadapter "LAN-Connection":
> >>
> >>Verbindungsspezifisches DNS-Suffix:
> >>Beschreibung. . . . . . . . . . . : NVIDIA nForce MCP Networking Adapter
> >>DHCP-active. . . . . . . . . .... : NO
> >>IP-Adress.. . . . . . . . . . . . : 172.18.1.121
> >>Subnetmask. . . . . . . . . . ... : 255.255.0.0
> >>Standardgateway . . . . . .. . .. : 172.18.1.1
> >>DNS-Server. . . . . . . . .. . .. : 145.253.2.11
> >>
> >>- Standardgateway: is a WLAN DSL-Router "LINKSYS WRT 54G"
> >>- VNC-CLIENT is Windows XP Home at WLAN Adress: 172.18.1.130
> >>- NO Firewall on Server or Client, all ports open
> >>- ping to 172.18.1.121 works from client
> >>- VNC-Option Connection: 172.18.0.0/255.255.0.0
> >>
> >>!!VNC Client connect works AFTER "Add New CLIENT" at VCN-Server!!!
> >>
> >>Any Hints?
> >>Roland
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> Subject: RE: What good is VNC's GPL?
> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 22:27:10 -0400
> From: "Steve Bostedor" <Steveb "at" tshore.com>
> To: "Erik Soderquist" <esoderquist "at" mcstamp.com>, "Angelo Sarto"
> <angelosarto "at" gmail.com>, "James Weatherall" <jnw "at" realvnc.com>
> Cc: "Bob Smith" <sendjunkmailshere "at" gmail.com>, "Kyle McDonald"
> <Kyle.McDonald "at" sun.com>, <yury "at" s-code.com>,
> <adam.moore.scode "at" gmail.com>, <vnc-list "at" realvnc.com>
>
> What about http://www.planetdns.net ? They appear to be just as bad, I
> think. Where is the integrity out there?
>
> - Steve Bostedor
> http://www.vncscan.com
> Guilt Free VNC Management
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vnc-list-admin "at" realvnc.com [mailto:vnc-list-admin "at" realvnc.com] On
> Behalf Of Erik Soderquist
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 10:00 AM
> To: Angelo Sarto; James Weatherall
> Cc: Bob Smith; Kyle McDonald; yury "at" s-code.com;
> adam.moore.scode "at" gmail.com; vnc-list "at" realvnc.com
> Subject: RE: What good is VNC's GPL?
>
>
> or both together...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vnc-list-admin "at" realvnc.com [mailto:vnc-list-admin "at" realvnc.com] On
> Behalf Of Angelo Sarto
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 08:59
> To: James Weatherall
> Cc: Bob Smith; Kyle McDonald; yury "at" s-code.com;
> adam.moore.scode "at" gmail.com; vnc-list "at" realvnc.com
> Subject: Re: What good is VNC's GPL?
>
> My apologies for the misinformation then, it can be pursued by *any*
> copyright holder. I guess in this case tightvnc is a derived work of
> realvnc, so either one would have the option of pursuing this.
>
> --Angelo
>
> On Apr 5, 2005 7:48 AM, James Weatherall <jnw "at" realvnc.com> wrote:
> > Angelo,
> >
> > I'm afraid you are incorrect. The copyright holders in this instance
> are
> > numerous and include RealVNC Ltd. Relatively speaking, only a small
> > proportion of the TightVNC codebase is actually specific to TightVNC.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Wez @ RealVNC Ltd.
> >
> >
> > > However, if this matter is a violation then the orginazation that
> > > initates the action has to be the copyright holder whos licensing is
>
> > > being violated In this case this would be the tightvnc group, who
> > > can choose to ask the FSF for help if necessary.
> _______________________________________________
> VNC-List mailing list
> VNC-List "at" realvnc.com
> To remove yourself from the list visit:
> http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
> _______________________________________________
> VNC-List mailing list
> VNC-List "at" realvnc.com
> To remove yourself from the list visit:
> http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> VNC-List mailing list
>
>
> VNC-List "at" realvnc.com
>
>
> http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
>
>
>
>
> End of VNC-List Digest