After more 2 000 000 (two million) views on forum for 1.5.0.x development versions... and 1.6.1.0, 1.6.3.0-dev versions
A new stable version, UltraVNC 1.6.4.0 and UltraVNC SC 1.6.4.0 have been released: https://forum.uvnc.com/viewtopic.php?t=38095
Feedback is always welcome
2025-12-05: Celebrating the 23th anniversary of the UltraVNC (26th anniversary since the laying of the foundation stone): https://forum.uvnc.com/viewtopic.php?t=38130
2025-12-03: Could you please complete our poll/survey? Renaming UltraVNC files and service to be more clear: https://forum.uvnc.com/viewtopic.php?t=38128
There was a problem to vote, it is solved now! Thanks in advance!
2025-12-02: We need help: English Wikipedia UltraVNC page has been requested to deletion: https://forum.uvnc.com/viewtopic.php?t=38127
Any help is welcome to improve the UltraVNC page and/or to comment on the Wikipedia Talk page
2025-05-06: Forum password change request: https://forum.uvnc.com/viewtopic.php?t=38078
2023-09-21: Important: Please update to latest version before to create a reply, a topic or an issue: https://forum.uvnc.com/viewtopic.php?t=37864
Development: UltraVNC development is always here... Any help is welcome
Feedback is welcome
Join us on social networks and share our announcements:
- Website: https://uvnc.com/
- GitHub: https://github.com/ultravnc
- Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@ultravnc
- Bluesky/AT Protocol: https://bsky.app/profile/ultravnc.bsky.social
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ultravnc1
- X/Twitter: https://x.com/ultravnc1
- Reddit community: https://www.reddit.com/r/ultravnc
- OpenHub: https://openhub.net/p/ultravnc
A new stable version, UltraVNC 1.6.4.0 and UltraVNC SC 1.6.4.0 have been released: https://forum.uvnc.com/viewtopic.php?t=38095
Feedback is always welcome
2025-12-05: Celebrating the 23th anniversary of the UltraVNC (26th anniversary since the laying of the foundation stone): https://forum.uvnc.com/viewtopic.php?t=38130
2025-12-03: Could you please complete our poll/survey? Renaming UltraVNC files and service to be more clear: https://forum.uvnc.com/viewtopic.php?t=38128
There was a problem to vote, it is solved now! Thanks in advance!
2025-12-02: We need help: English Wikipedia UltraVNC page has been requested to deletion: https://forum.uvnc.com/viewtopic.php?t=38127
Any help is welcome to improve the UltraVNC page and/or to comment on the Wikipedia Talk page
2025-05-06: Forum password change request: https://forum.uvnc.com/viewtopic.php?t=38078
2023-09-21: Important: Please update to latest version before to create a reply, a topic or an issue: https://forum.uvnc.com/viewtopic.php?t=37864
Development: UltraVNC development is always here... Any help is welcome
Feedback is welcome
Join us on social networks and share our announcements:
- Website: https://uvnc.com/
- GitHub: https://github.com/ultravnc
- Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@ultravnc
- Bluesky/AT Protocol: https://bsky.app/profile/ultravnc.bsky.social
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ultravnc1
- X/Twitter: https://x.com/ultravnc1
- Reddit community: https://www.reddit.com/r/ultravnc
- OpenHub: https://openhub.net/p/ultravnc
Stupid question
Stupid question
I have things working fine using a repeater. What I have concerns about is that during my testing when I connect to the repeater using 'vncviewer_ssl.exe' I do not have to authenticate myself. What would prevent an attacker from connection to a repeater and simply attempting to connect to random ID:Numbers. Is there a simple way to prevent this?
Re: Stupid question
nothing would prevent it... but at first it is very unlikely that a customer (server) connects to the repeater while someone bad connects to it (with ssl client) and second: the one i am talking about has even has to use the same ID.
Re: Stupid question
Is there any way to restrict which addresses are allowed to connect from a vncviewer_ssl without breaking the server side connection, since they both connect over port 443?
Re: Stupid question
Actually I have my answer. Simply use RC4 Encryption with a new key to ensure end2end encryption should protect againts certain attacks. If someone could post snobs "create your own certificate" util I would feel much more confident in implementing. Thanks
Re: Stupid question
there is a working link again - look into my post...
and an additional encryption is overhead... if you use SC3 there is already ssl encryption, which should do the job...
and an additional encryption is overhead... if you use SC3 there is already ssl encryption, which should do the job...
Last edited by snobs on 2007-04-02 21:38, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Stupid question
Thank you snobs. As far as encryption goes. Does using SSL only create a 'gap' at the repeater where both ends are unencrypted? That is how I perceived it where using RC4 is true end2end. Or am I wrong?
