Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect
-
@ambarishrh said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
How do you convince the C levels to have agent installed, that any help desk technician can view their screen?
What gave them the idea that help desk technicians can't already see everything they're doing anyway? Seems to me the real issue is the hiring process and not being able to trust the people that make it through in a case like this.
-
@ambarishrh said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
How do you convince the C levels to have agent installed, that any help desk technician can view their screen?
I tell them that a tech could always view their screen if they so chose and that that is a fundamental law of IT security. If they want their network to be crippled and cost to be higher for the illusion of security, that they are idiots.
-
@travisdh1 said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
@ambarishrh said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
How do you convince the C levels to have agent installed, that any help desk technician can view their screen?
What gave them the idea that help desk technicians can't already see everything they're doing anyway? Seems to me the real issue is the hiring process and not being able to trust the people that make it through in a case like this.
Exactly, where did they get such an idea and why are people who don't know security trying to dictate security?
-
In many cases, refusing to be condescending and treating C suite people like children fixes the problem. Too often, IT tells managers whatever they want to hear and shield them from reality which makes them even more likely to do crazy things.
-
I will check to roll this out via gp then and test it out with a smaller group
-
Management that doesn't understand that IT can do damned near anything they want (big exception is decrypt things they don't have the keys for) definitely doesn't understand IT at all.
A major thing I tell people - if can't trust your IT group, you must fire them yesterday, because they will screw you today.
Seriously - the absolute highest levels of trust must exist between management and IT, otherwise things just don't work.
-
Havent got any resistance i just wanted to understand how is it done other places. Its a new environment for me but i now have answers if they ask such questions
-
@ambarishrh said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
Havent got any resistance i just wanted to understand how is it done other places. Its a new environment for me but i now have answers if they ask such questions
We need agents of all sorts for monitoring. Without agents, we have no visibility. Or we have to expose a lot to do it.
-
And do you push software through SC and if so are there any stabdard list of software thar.you have?
-
We have some basic software already added to our base image
-
@ambarishrh said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
We have some basic software already added to our base image
Things in my base image
Chocolately
Citrix
Windirstat
Adobe Reader
Greenshot
MS Office
antivirus
ScreenConnect -
@dashrender said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
Management that doesn't understand that IT can do damned near anything they want (big exception is decrypt things they don't have the keys for) definitely doesn't understand IT at all.
A major thing I tell people - if can't trust your IT group, you must fire them yesterday, because they will screw you today.
Seriously - the absolute highest levels of trust must exist between management and IT, otherwise things just don't work.
What's sad is that the trust often seems to be there for day to day management, but often completely lacking when it comes to IT's recommendations for purchases.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
@ambarishrh said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
So I am at this point leaning towards screenconnect and guess installing it on CentOS would be a better option? Or should i consider a windows server, assuming that it could be tied up with our local AD? Please advise
throw the same resources at a Linux box and you get more from it
No Scott, this is not true.
-
@ambarishrh said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
How do you convince the C levels to have agent installed, that any help desk technician can view their screen?
You can disable that in the permissions.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
@ambarishrh said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
So I am at this point leaning towards screenconnect and guess installing it on CentOS would be a better option? Or should i consider a windows server, assuming that it could be tied up with our local AD? Please advise
There is a slight advantage to Windows, but not enough of one to overcome the costs and overhead (e.g. throw the same resources at a Linux box and you get more from it.) We run on CentOS and it is great.
If you have the licensing in hand already, install it on Windows. Performance is much better.
They are looking at updating the Linux version to work with .Net instead of Mono. But until they do, it sucks comparatively.
Now if you install on Linux and never use it form a Windows host you would not say it is bad to use. It is strictly the comparison between the two install methods.
-
@jaredbusch said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
@scottalanmiller said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
@ambarishrh said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
So I am at this point leaning towards screenconnect and guess installing it on CentOS would be a better option? Or should i consider a windows server, assuming that it could be tied up with our local AD? Please advise
There is a slight advantage to Windows, but not enough of one to overcome the costs and overhead (e.g. throw the same resources at a Linux box and you get more from it.) We run on CentOS and it is great.
If you have the licensing in hand already, install it on Windows. Performance is much better.
They are looking at updating the Linux version to work with .Net instead of Mono. But until they do, it sucks comparatively.
Now if you install on Linux and never use it form a Windows host you would not say it is bad to use. It is strictly the comparison between the two install methods.
I've seen the performance issues then... my SC boxes seem to need to be rebooted almost monthly.
-
@dashrender said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
@jaredbusch said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
@scottalanmiller said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
@ambarishrh said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
So I am at this point leaning towards screenconnect and guess installing it on CentOS would be a better option? Or should i consider a windows server, assuming that it could be tied up with our local AD? Please advise
There is a slight advantage to Windows, but not enough of one to overcome the costs and overhead (e.g. throw the same resources at a Linux box and you get more from it.) We run on CentOS and it is great.
If you have the licensing in hand already, install it on Windows. Performance is much better.
They are looking at updating the Linux version to work with .Net instead of Mono. But until they do, it sucks comparatively.
Now if you install on Linux and never use it form a Windows host you would not say it is bad to use. It is strictly the comparison between the two install methods.
I've seen the performance issues then... my SC boxes seem to need to be rebooted almost monthly.
Mine hasn't been rebooted for 2 months (I been lazy about updates on internal systems) and I have no different issues than I do right after a reboot.
-
@jaredbusch said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
@scottalanmiller said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
@ambarishrh said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
So I am at this point leaning towards screenconnect and guess installing it on CentOS would be a better option? Or should i consider a windows server, assuming that it could be tied up with our local AD? Please advise
throw the same resources at a Linux box and you get more from it
No Scott, this is not true.
You mean I should have said WAY more from it? It's not close from what we've seen (using cost resources as the guide.) We get close to parity performance at under half the cost.
-
@jaredbusch said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
Now if you install on Linux and never use it form a Windows host you would not say it is bad to use. It is strictly the comparison between the two install methods.
We moved from Windows to Linux. To keep the performance parity, we couldn't go below 50% cost on Linux. But the move from Windows to Linux was a slam dunk. Because of the use of Mono, it's not the 75% cost reduction we would normally expect to see, but it is still significant.
-
@dashrender said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
@jaredbusch said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
@scottalanmiller said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
@ambarishrh said in Decision on Remote Support Tool- ScreenConnect:
So I am at this point leaning towards screenconnect and guess installing it on CentOS would be a better option? Or should i consider a windows server, assuming that it could be tied up with our local AD? Please advise
There is a slight advantage to Windows, but not enough of one to overcome the costs and overhead (e.g. throw the same resources at a Linux box and you get more from it.) We run on CentOS and it is great.
If you have the licensing in hand already, install it on Windows. Performance is much better.
They are looking at updating the Linux version to work with .Net instead of Mono. But until they do, it sucks comparatively.
Now if you install on Linux and never use it form a Windows host you would not say it is bad to use. It is strictly the comparison between the two install methods.
I've seen the performance issues then... my SC boxes seem to need to be rebooted almost monthly.
I'm not confident that that is true. Gene reboots them regularly, that's not at all the same as that being what is needed. Also, there were not dissimilar issues on Windows. So you can't read into Gene rebooting as Windows not having issues. It's possible the two are related, but there is no reason to make that assumption based on the observations.
