UltraVNC

[Rudi De Vos]

Some small updates to make it work better on vista/win7
This is compatible with the helpdesk.txt settings of the older sc.
You can download your old zip, only when encryption was used you
need to regenerate a new key.

*encryption plugin from 106 used.
The rc4.key file need to be generated by this plugin

The zip you upload can contain following files, other are ignored
rc4.key
helpdesk.txt
icon1.ico
icon2.ico
logo.bmp
background.bmp
enter.bmp

The created exe get signed by uvnc for easy web download and execution.
(Because of the signing we don't allow to upload your own dll/exe/dsm)

Current it can only be tesed via
http://support1.uvnc.com/cgi-bin/upload4.pl
user: foo
pass: foobar

UAC: sc is running as user, this does NOT allow UAC access.
-UAC windows are view only. (you now stay connected in view only mode)
-When the UAC window ( not the popup, the one that has the elevated permission) is closed or minized, you get back full access.

Update 27/08/2009
helpdesk.txt added
[DIS_UAC]

*Adding this option, uac is disabled for admin. If the user who started
sc is admin you know can remote control system apps.

*poll settings back as in the old version, seems to give better performance.
_________________
http://www.pchelpware.com
http://www.uvnc.com

[menash]

thanks rudi

[JDaus]

awesome work rudi ..!

will give it a go !!!
_________________
ask a silly question and remain a fool for 5 minutes...
don't ask, and remain a fool for life
__
JD
VNC2Me - OpenSource Free Remote Screen\Desktop Sharing Solutions
YTS

[YY]

Hi! Rudi,

I had tested the updated creator, and inside the returned .EXE file, I found it consisting both the SCHook.dll & VNCHook.dll.

On another thread (Way to improve performance on 1.0.6.4), I notice you have mentioned that when both the two Hook.dll exist, the normal UVNC will use the SCHook.dll.

Does this apply to SC too?
If then why still pack the two Hook DLL into the .EXE ?

[Rudi De Vos]

The sc version use BOTH hooks, 1064 doesn't.
(The cursor shape depend on vnchooks, because changes needed to be minimal the vnchooks is still needed for proper mouse updates)
(schook is optional, but hints are better... my opinion)

-Both hooks give change hints.
-Hints of schook and vnchooks are rectangles who are combined in a region.
-A region combine rects and remove double, if schook and vnchooks tell the same, the region filter all overlapping rects.
-The region is used to capture screen, check if it realy changed, compressed and send to viewer.

The overhead of using both hooks is small.
_________________
http://www.pchelpware.com
http://www.uvnc.com

[Rudi De Vos]

Still waiting for Vista/WIN7 feedback
_________________
http://www.pchelpware.com
http://www.uvnc.com

[YY]

[Rudi De Vos]

Any feedback ?
_________________
http://www.pchelpware.com
http://www.uvnc.com

[stary]

Hello Rudi!

Thank's for your great work with SC.
I've tested the new version today with Win XP in my first step, I'll intend to test with Vista in next days.

I recerate the new SC with my old helpdesk.txt settings so I could compare the old and the new version's behaviour. I tested it on my local LAN from two XP computers as it was a first step to find if everything works.

BTW, the new EXE file is just about 238k (the old version was only 179k) and this is great. Although it's not a big deal with nowadays speed of the internet, I saw some competitive products, growing to megabytes.

So - testing the new version - I could say it's quite same on XP as the old version was and I'm glad it works, because there are still many machines with Windows XP, but we could expect new users of Windows 7 in next months.

As I said - it works. The only surprise for me was - it doesn't work smoothly as the old version did. If I leave all settings by default and there are no other video drivers installed on the server and viewer computers, the old version runs smoothly, but the new one runs with some delay which I noticed during the keyboard input.

So I looked into the properties on the server side and I noticed that the new version has different default settings than the old one. The Property "Poll Foreground Window" was unchecked and if I enable it with manually checking on, the new version become just as smooth and fast as the old version was and the keyboard delay went away.

The enabled Properties of the old version SC server was: "Poll Full Screen", "Poll ForeGround Window", "Poll on Event Received Only" and "System Hook Dll".

The new SC server comes with default Properties: "Poll Full Screen", "System Hook Dll" and "Low Accuracy".

I suppose this has something to do with the new settings for Vista / Win7,
and it's not a big deal turn it on during the session, but the settings cannot be saved and change always to default when the Property window is closed.

So - that was the only problem that I found, working in an old environment (XP) with the new version. I'll try in next days the same comparison with Vista, and I'll write some feedback about it.

[Rudi De Vos]

If settings need to differ ( default) based on OS i can add some
OS switch, but first i need to know the optimal settings for each OS.

Thanks for the feedback.
_________________
http://www.pchelpware.com
http://www.uvnc.com

[Sainsuper]

hi,
hi have done some little test with win7 and winvista from 2 virtual machine, but not in local but from internet ( with areo disable )

i have compared the old and next version.

I have seen a little best performance with the next version in windows vista, but in windows 7 i haven't seen more difference in performance, but is good that not disconnect when uac promt is enable!

my little suggest: it should be userful add reconnect funtion like old version modificated from advantig. (pgmoney)

i'll do other tests

regard
sainsuper

[Teddy]

[Rudi De Vos]

Sorry, reconect option can't be added.

I use sc myself and one of the requirements is that a connection can
only be initiated by the "to support" user.

vmware test:
Vista and WIN7 behave like XP video, under vmware both use a xpdm
driver and not the wddm. It's the latest that cause the performance issue's.
_________________
http://www.pchelpware.com
http://www.uvnc.com

[aromo]

Hi Rudi,

I tested it with Win7 Ultimate RC giving access to a Vista Ultimate SP2 machine running UltraVNC Viewer 1.0.2 and 1.0.6.4

Everything seem to work fine.

[stary]

[freakwent]

Hi guys,

The current production SC creator gives me a version which appears to have an incompatibility with RFB protocol version with some current vncviewers. In fact, I can't find a viewer that SC works with.

I can see from this thread where to find the new testing version, but what winvnc.exe do we use?

I've been experimenting with various vnc.exes from different vendors and versions in the old single click, but none of them work very well.

I'm not fussy about features, so I don't mind if I end up with one that's too old, or one that's too new and buggy, so does anyone have a known combination of winvnc.exe and a particular vncviewer that will work with either the old or new single click systems?

[stary]

[freakwent]

Hmm. This is not my experience; across a number of different viewing & serving systems I have had trouble with SC, where other vncs work ok.

When it fails, it behaves as though it works, but does not create a GUI window.

I believe this to be a protocol mismatch of some kind because of this behaviour:

(single-click):
[bash]$ /mnt/nix/usr/bin/vncviewer -listen
/mnt/nix/usr/bin/vncviewer -listen: Listening on port 5500
/mnt/nix/usr/bin/vncviewer -listen: Command line errors are not reported until a
connection comes in.
Connected to RFB server, using protocol version 3.8
^C

(uvnc server 1.0.6.4)
[bash]$ /mnt/nix/usr/bin/vncviewer -listen
/mnt/nix/usr/bin/vncviewer -listen: Listening on port 5500
/mnt/nix/usr/bin/vncviewer -listen: Command line errors are not reported until a
connection comes in.
Connected to RFB server, using protocol version 3.3
No authentication needed
Desktop name "dad-a6nrtjug8cd ( 192.168.0.234 )"
VNC server default format:
32 bits per pixel.
Least significant byte first in each pixel.
True colour: max red 255 green 255 blue 255, shift red 16 green 8 blue 0
Using default colormap which is TrueColor. Pixel format:
32 bits per pixel.
Least significant byte first in each pixel.
True colour: max red 255 green 255 blue 255, shift red 16 green 8 blue 0
Using shared memory PutImage
ShmCleanup called
^C

See? It's all good with a different server. The viewer I have in this example is:

[bash]$ /mnt/nix/usr/bin/vncviewer --help
TightVNC Viewer version 1.3.9
[..snip..]


I'm happy to accept that it's the wrong viewer, but in windows with the 1.0.6.4 viewer I get the same behaviour: Valid TCP connection, the server removes the wallpaper, then it all drops out. The only common thing across different OS's and software versions is the vnc server version packaged in the SC executable, AFAICT.

Here's a final example, using:

VNC Viewer Free Edition 4.1.3 for X - built Aug 9 2009 19:34:55
Copyright (C) 2002-2008 RealVNC Ltd.

vncviewer -listen

VNC Viewer Free Edition 4.1.3 for X - built Aug 9 2009 19:34:55
Copyright (C) 2002-2008 RealVNC Ltd.
See http://www.realvnc.com for information on VNC.



single click:

Sun Aug 9 19:37:00 2009
main: Listening on port 5500
Sun Aug 9 19:37:07 2009
CConn: Accepted connection from 192.168.0.234::1080
CConnection: Server supports RFB protocol version 3.16
CConnection: Using RFB protocol version 3.8
Sun Aug 9 19:37:16 2009
main: End of stream

No GUI appeared; the connection was closed from the server's end, which behaved as though the viewer was working fine.


Using uvnc server 1.0.6.4:

Sun Aug 9 19:37:44 2009
CConn: Accepted connection from 192.168.0.234::1082
CConnection: Server supports RFB protocol version 3.6
CConnection: Using RFB protocol version 3.3

.... and it works fine.

You can see from the outputs here why I thought it was a protocol mismatch.

Has anyone encountered this before? Is 3.16 a valid RFB version? wikipedia doesn't think so, but then again what would they know?!

[Rudi De Vos]

SC or ultravnc 1064 with option -sc_XXX require the ultravnc viewer and is not compatible with all existing viewers.

To indicate that the viewer need to accept the server and show some server info before the connection is made we use a non official pseudo protocol 3.16. Only the ultravnc viewer understand this and has the needed code to show this accept box.
_________________
http://www.pchelpware.com
http://www.uvnc.com

[freakwent]

wow, thank you SO much for your help! And such a fast response!

This explains everything! Well, almost. I'm using windows VMs for testing, and it works fine for the current 1.0.6.4 version, but sc crashes (differently now though).

I'll check the helpdesk.txt settings and start again. I'm sure it will be fine this time.

Thanks again!