Questions About RealVNC Personal Edition...
robin at robinhill.me.uk
Tue Dec 15 16:23:51 GMT 2009
On Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:01:44PM -0600, Peter Bunn wrote:
> I'm wondering if the RealVNC Personal Edition would be a better solution
> for me, and I have a few questions...
> Is it as secure as the VNC over SSH tunnel method in all respects?
That depends really on what encryption they're using - this doesn't seem
to be documented anywhere though. I doubt it'll have quite the same
level of rigorous testing as openssh has been through though (unless
they're using openssl under the hood anyway). That's unlikely to make
any difference for this sort of usage though.
> Can the VNC service be run on a non-standard port (if desired) using the
> 'native' (XP SP3) Windows Firewall?
> Would it be possible to run Personal Edition 'side by side' with the free
> version (on the same target machine) to provide a backup method?
You'd be best addressing these to the RealVNC support/sales emails. I
don't see why you shouldn't be able to run it on a non-standard port
though. Running it side-by-side is likely to be problematic though.
> I'm still on a dialup connection (with no hope of getting broadband
> anytime soon) and the VNC/SSH combination I'd been using, while slow, was
> 'survivable'... and a good bit faster than the web access service I had
> as backup.
> With the added encryption overhead, will the Personal Edition of RealVNC
> likely be noticeably slower than the free version?
Shouldn't be - you're trading the ssh encryption overhead for the
RealVNC encryption overhead.
The alternative is to stick with ssh - you should be able to run openssh
server with cygwin, or freeSSHd (www.freesshd.com) is a more
( ' } | Robin Hill <robin at robinhill.me.uk> |
/ / ) | Little Jim says .... |
// !! | "He fallen in de water !!" |
More information about the VNC-List