Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #144327 > unrolled thread

Re: Share Windows screen with an iPhone

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Share Windows screen with an iPhone Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-11-24 23:29 +0000
    Re: Share Windows screen with an iPhone Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2024-11-25 08:37 +0000
      Re: Share Windows screen with an iPhone "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-11-25 12:49 +0100
      Re: Share Windows screen with an iPhone Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-11-25 23:31 +0000
        Re: Share Windows screen with an iPhone "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-11-26 02:39 +0100
          Re: Share Windows screen with an iPhone Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-11-26 01:53 +0000
            Re: Share Windows screen with an iPhone "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-11-26 13:33 +0100
              Re: Share Windows screen with an iPhone Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-11-26 14:26 +0000
                Re: Share Windows screen with an iPhone Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2024-11-26 12:56 -0600
          Re: Share Windows screen with an iPhone Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-11-26 19:41 -0500
      Re: Share Windows screen with an iPhone Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2024-11-25 18:19 -0600
        Re: Share Windows screen with an iPhone Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-11-26 01:42 +0000
        Re: Share Windows screen with an iPhone "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-11-26 02:41 +0100
          Re: Share Windows screen with an iPhone Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2024-11-25 21:05 -0600
            Re: Share Windows screen with an iPhone "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-11-26 13:11 +0100
              Re: Share Windows screen with an iPhone Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2024-11-26 13:01 -0600

#144327 — Re: Share Windows screen with an iPhone

GlowingBlueMist wrote on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 22:57:07 -0600 :

> On 11/20/2024 10:17 PM, Andrews wrote:
>> I need to share my Windows screen so that someone else who is only on an
>> iPhone can operate my screen (mouse & keyboard entries for example).
>> 
>> For those of you who have performed that sharing task, how do you do it?
>> 
>> What are your suggestions for the most compatible software to do it?
>> 
>> Thanks!
> 
> A google search resulted in the following and no I have not tried either 
> of these methods.
> 
> To remotely control a Windows PC from an iPhone, you can use the 
> Microsoft Remote Desktop app or Splashtop:
> 
> Microsoft Remote Desktop
> 1. Install the app from the App Store or iTunes
> 2. Open the app and give it the necessary permissions
> 3. Tap the plus (+) button and select Add PC
> 4. Type the name of the PC and add .local at the end
> 5. Enter the account name you want to use
> 6. Type a name in the Friendly Name field
> 7. Tap Save
> 8.Tap the icon for the computer you want to access
> 
> Splashtop
> 1. Install the Splashtop app from the App Store
> 2. Set up Splashtop Streamer on your computer
> 3. Log in to your Splashtop account
> 4. Open the Splashtop app on your iPhone and click on the computer you 
> want to access

I ended up using "" on both Android & iPhone to Windows so I added the
Android newsgroup so that they can benefit from the hell that happened.

Thanks for that advice, where this is a classic case of the wrong app for
the job but I didn't arrive at that epiphany until I had spent a few hours
making it work - and only then - did I realize it doesn't actually work. :)
 <https://aka.ms/rdsetup>

You'd think PC Magazine is reputable, so I followed their instructions.
 *How to Remotely Access a PC From Your iPhone or Android Device*
 <https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/access-a-pc-from-your-iphone-or-android-device>

The steps seem simple enough - which was what so devilishly seductive:
a. Set up Microsoft Remote Desktop on Windows (it's native in Windows 10)
b. Set up your router for port forwarding (Microsoft default is port 3389)
c. Set up the remote device to log into your Windows PC over the Internet

A few problems related to me (the host computer) & them (the remote iPad):
1. You can't let them log into a Windows account without a password
2. So you have to create a new dummy account with a password just for them
3. Even then, if you don't have much space, you have to clean up your HDD

Once you get a dummy account set up on Windows using Native tools
 Win+I > System > Remote Desktop > Enable Remote Desktop = turn it on
 Advanced Settings > uncheck "Require computers to use Network Level
 Authentication to connect (recommended)"

I have been on Windows since Windows 95 days and I never ran into that word
so maybe someone here can tell me what it means to use "Network Level
Authentication" since I wanted to make this easy to I unchecked it.
 <https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/remote/remote-desktop-services/clients/remote-desktop-allow-access>

Now you talk your friend who is on an iPhone how to use your computer
screen, you think - but in the end - you can't do that with  Microsoft
Remote Desktop software which isn't even called Microsoft Remote Desktop.

So when they search for it, they tell you it's not on the Apple App Store.
And it's not. Because it's called something else. 
 *Windows App Mobile* (formerly known as Microsoft Remote Desktop)
 <https://apps.apple.com/us/app/windows-app-mobile/id714464092>

Nothing works for this person - where they're Apple users - so they can't
even find the app they just installed so we go through a few iterations
before she can find it - but finally she finds it and still nothing works.

Anyone who says "it just works" on iOS maybe was a marketing person.
Anyway, it just doesn't work for her so I grab the Android app to test it.
 *Remote Desktop*, by Microsoft Corporation (different name, go figure)
 <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.microsoft.rdc.androidx>

Even though the Android app is on the same LAN as the desktop PC that I
want to share the screen of, "Remote Desktop" tries to connect given only
the (static) WAN address of my router's incoming connection & the username
to log in as (which is my username & which has no password as I don't live
in teh slums & as a result, I don't understand people who do live in slums
who are afraid of everyone around them to the point that they need them).

It won't work with Android either - but I see the error. Microsoft Remote
Desktop (aka Windows App Mobile) won't connect to a PC without a password.

Aurgh. So I log out of my account on Windows & log into the Administrator
account and create a new account for the remote user that has a password.

It still doesn't work. This time it want's me to grant permission (which is
no problem) but it also wants to kick me out even though I'm NOT logged in
as that user. I'm still Administrator in fact. But it kicks me out anyway.

Huh? Well, she logs in, but now on her tiny iPhone is my Windows screen of
an account I never log into so it's foreign even to me so I test it myself
on Android and I agree with her that it puts her into my Windows PC.

But get this... 

It apparently requires EXCLUSIVE complete and total access to that PC!

You can't do ANYTHING on that PC (other than grant that person permission
to log into that PC as a user with a password). But you can't even SEE your
screen as she has complete and total control over your PC from her iPhone.

I couldn't believe this so I tested it with my Android (which kicked HER
off the connection) and indeed, only one entity in the world at any given
time has complete and total control over that PC (which wasn't what I
wanted). I just had wanted to share my desktop with her over the Internet.

In summary, besides the fact I still need to find a way for her to share my
desktop without me having to create an account on someone's server on the
Internet, I did find an interesting way to COMPLETELY TAKE OVER someone's
PC without having to create an account on someone's server on the net.
 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#144382

Andrew wrote:

[snip]

> In summary, besides the fact I still need to find a way for her to share my
> desktop without me having to create an account on someone's server on the
> Internet, I did find an interesting way to COMPLETELY TAKE OVER someone's
> PC without having to create an account on someone's server on the net.

Remote Desktop is designed to take over the remote machine.  It is not a 
screen-sharing application, so it's not appropriate to your needs.

It's also designed for use in a security-conscious environment where 
users have passwords.  It's more normal application is for users to gain 
access to a Microsoft Server, where several users can access the server 
simultaneously and each has their own working environment.  Ordinarily 
the Remote Desktop service is only available on the Professional or 
Enterprise versions of Microsoft's desktop operation systems.

What you appear to need is a Screen-Sharing application.  These are 
available from several sources, called generically Virtual Network 
Connection.  Names like RealVNC, TightVNC, and UltraVNC come to mind.

For your application, the server component is installed on the Windows 
PC (any flavour of Windows), you open a port in your router to allow the 
incoming connection and you need a static public IP address or a Dynamic 
DNS registration; and your internet connection must not involve GCNAT.

The client device - the smartphone - has the client component installed. 
  As you have found, the various app stores may give the client 
misleading names - others here may be able to say what names are 
actually used.  The logic of using a smartphone with a tiny screen to 
see a typical large screen of a desktop PC beats me; but where the 
client is another desktop PC with a big screen it works well.

Each flavour of VNC may have strange limitations.  Most often 
encountered is that the connection stops when the host PC pops up a UAC 
(User Access Control) window so the user at that PC has to "OK" the 
prompt before the connection resumes.  But for screen sharing with a 
user who is present and watching the activity it is not a real problem. 
It does become a real problem where VNC is used for remote access to an 
unattended PC - typically when you are away from home and require access 
to something on your PC at home.

Another screen-sharing app is TeamViewer, and this will work through 
CGNAT since both client and server component talk to a central (traffic 
cop) facility in the cloud.  There no need to open any special ports in 
your router.  So the Teamviewer company knows what you are doing and 
when.  I used this in the past when it was free to home users for 
occasional use, but now it has stopped working for me.  There is an 
expensive paid-for version which is more realistically priced for a 
computer support business.  It's clearly used by the scammers who claim 
to be from Microsoft while they empty your bank account.


-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#144384

On 2024-11-25 09:37, Graham J wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> In summary, besides the fact I still need to find a way for her to 
>> share my
>> desktop without me having to create an account on someone's server on the
>> Internet, I did find an interesting way to COMPLETELY TAKE OVER someone's
>> PC without having to create an account on someone's server on the net.
> 
> Remote Desktop is designed to take over the remote machine.  It is not a 
> screen-sharing application, so it's not appropriate to your needs.
> 
> It's also designed for use in a security-conscious environment where 
> users have passwords.  It's more normal application is for users to gain 
> access to a Microsoft Server, where several users can access the server 
> simultaneously and each has their own working environment.  Ordinarily 
> the Remote Desktop service is only available on the Professional or 
> Enterprise versions of Microsoft's desktop operation systems.

Right.

And allowing only one user in plain Windows is a licensing limitation, 
not a technical limitation.


> 
> What you appear to need is a Screen-Sharing application.  These are 
> available from several sources, called generically Virtual Network 
> Connection.  Names like RealVNC, TightVNC, and UltraVNC come to mind.
> 
> For your application, the server component is installed on the Windows 
> PC (any flavour of Windows), you open a port in your router to allow the 
> incoming connection and you need a static public IP address or a Dynamic 
> DNS registration; and your internet connection must not involve GCNAT.

Or use a third party server as intermediary, like TeamViewer does.


> The client device - the smartphone - has the client component installed. 
>   As you have found, the various app stores may give the client 
> misleading names - others here may be able to say what names are 
> actually used.  The logic of using a smartphone with a tiny screen to 
> see a typical large screen of a desktop PC beats me; but where the 
> client is another desktop PC with a big screen it works well.
> 
> Each flavour of VNC may have strange limitations.  Most often 
> encountered is that the connection stops when the host PC pops up a UAC 
> (User Access Control) window so the user at that PC has to "OK" the 
> prompt before the connection resumes.  But for screen sharing with a 
> user who is present and watching the activity it is not a real problem. 
> It does become a real problem where VNC is used for remote access to an 
> unattended PC - typically when you are away from home and require access 
> to something on your PC at home.
> 
> Another screen-sharing app is TeamViewer, and this will work through 
> CGNAT since both client and server component talk to a central (traffic 
> cop) facility in the cloud.  There no need to open any special ports in 
> your router.  So the Teamviewer company knows what you are doing and 
> when.  I used this in the past when it was free to home users for 
> occasional use, but now it has stopped working for me.  There is an 
> expensive paid-for version which is more realistically priced for a 
> computer support business.  It's clearly used by the scammers who claim 
> to be from Microsoft while they empty your bank account.

Right.


If I google "screen sharing application" google lists here 9 
applications, some of which project the host display into clients, but 
the clients can not use it. Useful for teleconferencing. Ah, a click 
displays 34 more apps.





-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#144478

Graham J wrote on Mon, 25 Nov 2024 08:37:30 +0000 :

>> In summary, besides the fact I still need to find a way for her to share my
>> desktop without me having to create an account on someone's server on the
>> Internet, I did find an interesting way to COMPLETELY TAKE OVER someone's
>> PC without having to create an account on someone's server on the net.
> 
> Remote Desktop is designed to take over the remote machine.  It is not a 
> screen-sharing application, so it's not appropriate to your needs.

Yup. I figured that out eventually. But the words are similar for screen
sharing so it fooled both GlowingBlueMist and me since "share" means
different things. 

In this case, "share" meant completely take over exclusively.
I just wanted to share my Windows screen for an iPad (or Android) user.

That way they could "operate" my machine with me watching them do it.
I still don't know how to do that without creating an account somewhere.

> It's also designed for use in a security-conscious environment where 
> users have passwords.  It's more normal application is for users to gain 
> access to a Microsoft Server, where several users can access the server 
> simultaneously and each has their own working environment.  Ordinarily 
> the Remote Desktop service is only available on the Professional or 
> Enterprise versions of Microsoft's desktop operation systems.

Thanks for explaining that Microsoft Remote Desktop (which is now named
"Windows App Mobile" on the Apple App Store and "Remote Desktop" on the
Google App Store) is mostly for the security-conscious environments.

Since I don't live in the slums, I don't put passwords or biometrics on
anything since I happen to not be afraid of the people living with me.
 
I never understood why so many people live in such constant abject fear of
everyone around them that they feel they need constant biometric locking.

> What you appear to need is a Screen-Sharing application.  These are 
> available from several sources, called generically Virtual Network 
> Connection.  Names like RealVNC, TightVNC, and UltraVNC come to mind.

Yes. I need to simply share my screen so that the other person can operate
the mouse and keyboard - although this person is only on an iPhone which,
to me, is ridiculous, since it's so puny - but I just talked her into
purchasing this $250 10th-generation iPad so at least that will be bigger.
 <https://www.engadget.com/deals/black-friday-apple-deals-include-the-10th-gen-ipad-for-a-record-low-price-130005592.html >

I don't think it matters if the client is Android or iOS though. 

I just need to find a server for Windows 10 that doesn't require an account
on the Internet as I don't want anything on the net that doesn't need to be
there.

> For your application, the server component is installed on the Windows 
> PC (any flavour of Windows), you open a port in your router to allow the 
> incoming connection and you need a static public IP address or a Dynamic 
> DNS registration; and your internet connection must not involve GCNAT.

Hmm... I have Windows 10, and while I'm no router expert, there's a section
for "port forwarding" on my router, and I have a static IP address from my
WISP, and, um... er... GCNAT? I have to look that up. Gimme a sec....
 <https://duckduckgo.com/?va=d&t=hc&q=what+is+gcnat&ia=web>
 Carrier-grade NAT
 Carrier-grade NAT, also known as large-scale NAT, is a type of 
 network address translation used by ISPs in IPv4 network design.
 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT>

I have no idea if my tiny WISP has Carrier-grade NAT but I sent an email
asking them so I'll let you know if they do use carrier grade NAT on WISP.

> The client device - the smartphone - has the client component installed. 
>   As you have found, the various app stores may give the client 
> misleading names - others here may be able to say what names are 
> actually used.  The logic of using a smartphone with a tiny screen to 
> see a typical large screen of a desktop PC beats me; but where the 
> client is another desktop PC with a big screen it works well.

Yes. I must agree. There are plenty of people in my household (mostly the
girls and women) who are only on Apple products and only on mobile devices.

How they survive I don't know - but that's the world we have to deal with.
My screen is about three feet wide and I display my devices onto it so
they're about two feet tall which is how "I" operate a mobile device. Sigh.

People who use only mobile devices survive somehow so I gotta give 'em
credit.

> Each flavour of VNC may have strange limitations.  Most often 
> encountered is that the connection stops when the host PC pops up a UAC 
> (User Access Control) window so the user at that PC has to "OK" the 
> prompt before the connection resumes.  But for screen sharing with a 
> user who is present and watching the activity it is not a real problem. 
> It does become a real problem where VNC is used for remote access to an 
> unattended PC - typically when you are away from home and require access 
> to something on your PC at home.

I will be watching everything she does as she needs something that is on my
computer but which I can't give her the login/password to. So I will be
there walking her through every step of the way (as it's complicated).

> Another screen-sharing app is TeamViewer, and this will work through 
> CGNAT since both client and server component talk to a central (traffic 
> cop) facility in the cloud.  There no need to open any special ports in 
> your router.  So the Teamviewer company knows what you are doing and 
> when. 

Ah! I was wondering *WHY* I had to do port forwarding on my router to use
Microsoft Remote Desktop. I guess what you're explaining is that if I do
port forwarding, the server company doesn't know what I'm doing - but if I
don't have to do port forwarding on my router, then the sharing company
does know what I'm doing. Is that right?

For what we're doing, it doesn't matter though as we're not hiding what
we're doing from a TLA - although we'd like to have basic normal privacy.

I tried creating a TeamViewer account long ago, but it won't work with
throwaway email by the way.

> I used this in the past when it was free to home users for 
> occasional use, but now it has stopped working for me.  There is an 
> expensive paid-for version which is more realistically priced for a 
> computer support business.  It's clearly used by the scammers who claim 
> to be from Microsoft while they empty your bank account.

I had liked that the Microsoft Remote Desktop didn't ask for a
login/password account on someone else's server but I guess I'm going to
have to set up an account on the VNC or TeamViewer web sites after all.

I just tried to register a TeamViewer account with a new ProtonMail
account, but ProtonMail apparently blocked it saying that they don't allow
connections right away which are validation queries. Go figure.

Privacy is a bitch... because nobody wants you to have it. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#144480

On 2024-11-26 00:31, Andrew wrote:
> Graham J wrote on Mon, 25 Nov 2024 08:37:30 +0000 :
> 

...

> Thanks for explaining that Microsoft Remote Desktop (which is now named
> "Windows App Mobile" on the Apple App Store and "Remote Desktop" on the
> Google App Store) is mostly for the security-conscious environments.
> 
> Since I don't live in the slums, I don't put passwords or biometrics on
> anything since I happen to not be afraid of the people living with me.
>   
> I never understood why so many people live in such constant abject fear of
> everyone around them that they feel they need constant biometric locking.

Arlen, you get it wrong, as usual. We are not afraid of the people we 
live with, but of the strangers that may pass by one day, and of those 
on the cloud.

Surely you lock your car on the street in NY, or your house door on a city.

...

>> For your application, the server component is installed on the Windows
>> PC (any flavour of Windows), you open a port in your router to allow the
>> incoming connection and you need a static public IP address or a Dynamic
>> DNS registration; and your internet connection must not involve GCNAT.
> 
> Hmm... I have Windows 10, and while I'm no router expert, there's a section
> for "port forwarding" on my router, and I have a static IP address from my
> WISP, and, um... er... GCNAT? I have to look that up. Gimme a sec....
>   <https://duckduckgo.com/?va=d&t=hc&q=what+is+gcnat&ia=web>
>   Carrier-grade NAT
>   Carrier-grade NAT, also known as large-scale NAT, is a type of
>   network address translation used by ISPs in IPv4 network design.
>   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT>
> 
> I have no idea if my tiny WISP has Carrier-grade NAT but I sent an email
> asking them so I'll let you know if they do use carrier grade NAT on WISP.

You don't have to ask. You just find out by looking at your computer 
and/or your router, or your phone.

If the internet address on your router, or your internet facing machine, 
is a private address, like 10.*.*.*, you are on GNAT.

...

>> Another screen-sharing app is TeamViewer, and this will work through
>> CGNAT since both client and server component talk to a central (traffic
>> cop) facility in the cloud.  There no need to open any special ports in
>> your router.  So the Teamviewer company knows what you are doing and
>> when.
> 
> Ah! I was wondering *WHY* I had to do port forwarding on my router to use
> Microsoft Remote Desktop. I guess what you're explaining is that if I do
> port forwarding, the server company doesn't know what I'm doing - but if I
> don't have to do port forwarding on my router, then the sharing company
> does know what I'm doing. Is that right?

That's a secondary effect, not the reason.



-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#144483

Carlos E.R. wrote on Tue, 26 Nov 2024 02:39:02 +0100 :

> We are not afraid of the people we 
> live with, but of the strangers that may pass by one day, and of those 
> on the cloud.

I am using the word "slums" to make a point about WHY people lock their
devices when it means they're deathly afraid of everyone around them.

I care about privacy as much as the next person cares about privacy.
And I care about security too.

But I don't lock my devices because I'm not afraid of the people who have
physical access to them. Only people who live in abject fear lock them.

> Surely you lock your car on the street in NY, or your house door on a city.

NY is the slums. So, sure, I'll lock my car in NY but at home, I don't live
in the slums so when my car is parked in my driveway, the windows are open.

Only people who live in slums need to lock their computers every second.
That's because they don't trust anyone who lives in their own home.

>> I have no idea if my tiny WISP has Carrier-grade NAT but I sent an email
>> asking them so I'll let you know if they do use carrier grade NAT on WISP.
> 
> You don't have to ask. You just find out by looking at your computer 
> and/or your router, or your phone.
> 
> If the internet address on your router, or your internet facing machine, 
> is a private address, like 10.*.*.*, you are on GNAT.

Thanks. I never heard of CGNAT before but my IP address is not a private
address so I guess I'm normal - although I'm on a WISP but it's the same.
 
>> Ah! I was wondering *WHY* I had to do port forwarding on my router to use
>> Microsoft Remote Desktop. I guess what you're explaining is that if I do
>> port forwarding, the server company doesn't know what I'm doing - but if I
>> don't have to do port forwarding on my router, then the sharing company
>> does know what I'm doing. Is that right?
> 
> That's a secondary effect, not the reason.

Thanks.

Back to the topic, I installed TeamViewer but there are so many variations,
I'm not sure which variation is the one for what I want to do with my PC.

All I want to do is share my PC with someone on a mobile device such that
the person on the mobile can see my screen & operate the cursor & keys.

Which TeamViewer is that?


https://www.teamviewer.com/en-us/download/windows/

1. TeamViewer QuickSupport (If you want to receive support:)
2. TeamViewer full client (If you want to provide support)
3. TeamViewer Host (If you want to set up unattended access to a device)
4. TeamViewer MSI Package (If you want to mass deploy TeamViewer)
5. TeamViewer Meeting (If you want to join or start a meeting)

Which of those allows a mobile device to see my screen and operate the
mouse and keyboard so that they can do stuff with an account on my PC?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#144487

On 2024-11-26 02:53, Andrew wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote on Tue, 26 Nov 2024 02:39:02 +0100 :
> 
>> We are not afraid of the people we
>> live with, but of the strangers that may pass by one day, and of those
>> on the cloud.
> 
> I am using the word "slums" to make a point about WHY people lock their
> devices when it means they're deathly afraid of everyone around them.
> 
> I care about privacy as much as the next person cares about privacy.
> And I care about security too.
> 
> But I don't lock my devices because I'm not afraid of the people who have
> physical access to them. Only people who live in abject fear lock them.
> 
>> Surely you lock your car on the street in NY, or your house door on a city.
> 
> NY is the slums. So, sure, I'll lock my car in NY but at home, I don't live
> in the slums so when my car is parked in my driveway, the windows are open.
> 
> Only people who live in slums need to lock their computers every second.
> That's because they don't trust anyone who lives in their own home.


Your usual rhetoric. Again, we are not afraid of the people that live 
with us, but of those that don't.

And then, keeping privacy can be absolute. NO ONE, including those in 
our houses, need to pry what we do.

And then, you forget that one may live alone, and yet follow recommended 
security and privacy practices. We consider silly not to use login/pass 
even at home. Security in computing is multilayered, any expert will 
tell you that. You don't rely solely on the house key.

>>> I have no idea if my tiny WISP has Carrier-grade NAT but I sent an email
>>> asking them so I'll let you know if they do use carrier grade NAT on WISP.
>>
>> You don't have to ask. You just find out by looking at your computer
>> and/or your router, or your phone.
>>
>> If the internet address on your router, or your internet facing machine,
>> is a private address, like 10.*.*.*, you are on GNAT.

Oops, CGNAT.

> 
> Thanks. I never heard of CGNAT before but my IP address is not a private
> address so I guess I'm normal - although I'm on a WISP but it's the same.

It would be rare in the USA for an ISP to use CGNAT, because the USA 
reserved a huge pool of IPv4 addresses. A small cheap provider might use 
it, though. On countries where the pool is scarce (and instead of using 
IPv6) they would have to use CGNAT.

>   
>>> Ah! I was wondering *WHY* I had to do port forwarding on my router to use
>>> Microsoft Remote Desktop. I guess what you're explaining is that if I do
>>> port forwarding, the server company doesn't know what I'm doing - but if I
>>> don't have to do port forwarding on my router, then the sharing company
>>> does know what I'm doing. Is that right?
>>
>> That's a secondary effect, not the reason.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Back to the topic, I installed TeamViewer but there are so many variations,
> I'm not sure which variation is the one for what I want to do with my PC.
> 
> All I want to do is share my PC with someone on a mobile device such that
> the person on the mobile can see my screen & operate the cursor & keys.
> 
> Which TeamViewer is that?
> 
> 
> https://www.teamviewer.com/en-us/download/windows/
> 
> 1. TeamViewer QuickSupport (If you want to receive support:)
> 2. TeamViewer full client (If you want to provide support)
> 3. TeamViewer Host (If you want to set up unattended access to a device)
> 4. TeamViewer MSI Package (If you want to mass deploy TeamViewer)
> 5. TeamViewer Meeting (If you want to join or start a meeting)
> 
> Which of those allows a mobile device to see my screen and operate the
> mouse and keyboard so that they can do stuff with an account on my PC?

It has been some time since I looked. The problem is finding out what 
they call client and what server.

You want to be "supported", ie, you want your computer to be used by 
someone (so 1). The person in the phone connects to you and manipulates 
your computer, ie, gives support (so 2).


I would also suggest googling "alternatives to teamviewer". Teamviewer 
is the best known, but there are others. I can not recommend any of them 
from personal experience, though.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#144492

Carlos E.R. wrote on Tue, 26 Nov 2024 13:33:33 +0100 :

>> Only people who live in slums need to lock their computers every second.
>> That's because they don't trust anyone who lives in their own home.
> 
> Your usual rhetoric. Again, we are not afraid of the people that live 
> with us, but of those that don't.

You're supposed to understand the analogy, which is that (admittedly
brilliant, most of it by Apple) MARKETING has made unthinking people
"think" that their computer "safety" is in constant biometrics.

Remember, with Apple devices you're *always* logged into the Cupertino
Mainframes, so it's Apple who wants you to secure your phone.

Given there is no phone less secure than an iPhone, it's Apple who needs
that security - not you. Apple tricks naive people into thinking that
biometrics are where security is at - when that's just their gimmick.

Now I know you're not on Apple devices but these biometric gimmicks extend
to Android and even to Windows but it's MARKETING who tells you this.

Anyway, this thread isn't about biometric gimmicks making ignorant people
"feel" safe since they feel their face or fingerprint will save them.

Just understand when I say people in the slums use biometrics, I'm using
words to get a point across that you're supposed to get the main gist.

My point is MARKETING teaches people all their computer skills - which
means that they don't have any common sense - they don't think about it.

Biometrics is not where security is at. Biometrics are for fools.

> And then, keeping privacy can be absolute. NO ONE, including those in 
> our houses, need to pry what we do.

In my house, I'm not afraid of my wife, kids, or grandkids so I don't need
to lock my computer. I also keep my personal data (such as medical data)
under wraps and I don't keep my browsers logged into anything. 

Given that, if someone accesses my computer- it's like them accessing a
local public library computer. The worst they can do is delete stuff.

This is my main point about Apple needing the privacy - not you. With Apple
products, the device is just a dumb terminal so, sure, it needs to be
locked. But if you set up Android and/or Windows intelligently, if someone
sits at it, nothing of import is available to them by intelligent design.

> And then, you forget that one may live alone, and yet follow recommended 
> security and privacy practices. We consider silly not to use login/pass 
> even at home. Security in computing is multilayered, any expert will 
> tell you that. You don't rely solely on the house key.

The house key is a good point in that anyone who knows anything knows that
locking the door isn't "security" as all it does is keep your friends out.

Same with biometric gimmicks.

>> Thanks. I never heard of CGNAT before but my IP address is not a private
>> address so I guess I'm normal - although I'm on a WISP but it's the same.
> 
> It would be rare in the USA for an ISP to use CGNAT, because the USA 
> reserved a huge pool of IPv4 addresses. A small cheap provider might use 
> it, though. On countries where the pool is scarce (and instead of using 
> IPv6) they would have to use CGNAT.

Thanks for the information about Carrier-Grade NAT as I had never heard of
it before someone mentioned it and I looked it up to see what it was.

My IP address comes over the air from a few miles away and is static.


>> Which TeamViewer is that?
>> 
>> https://www.teamviewer.com/en-us/download/windows/
>> 
>> 1. TeamViewer QuickSupport (If you want to receive support:)
>> 2. TeamViewer full client (If you want to provide support)
>> 3. TeamViewer Host (If you want to set up unattended access to a device)
>> 4. TeamViewer MSI Package (If you want to mass deploy TeamViewer)
>> 5. TeamViewer Meeting (If you want to join or start a meeting)
>> 
>> Which of those allows a mobile device to see my screen and operate the
>> mouse and keyboard so that they can do stuff with an account on my PC?
> 
> It has been some time since I looked. The problem is finding out what 
> they call client and what server.

Yup. It's confusing. I think, in the scheme of the way Teamviewer is
looking at it, I am the one being supported and the iPhone is who is
supporting me - even as that's counterintuitive to what's happening.

> You want to be "supported", ie, you want your computer to be used by 
> someone (so 1). The person in the phone connects to you and manipulates 
> your computer, ie, gives support (so 2).

Yup. It's counterintuitive. But I think I'm the one being supported, so
that means, I think, she needs the TeamViewer full client while I need the
Te3amViewer QuickSupport.

The problem with that is that means she has to create the TeamViewer
account, which is asking too much of her, I fear.


However, it's confusing as "maybe" I can create the login with the
Teamviewer Full Client, where I may to be able to still share my screen.

That's what I installed but TeamViewer won't let me create an account using
protonmail or gmx mail (throwaway mail addresses).

Even protonmail won't let TeamViewer authenticate since it told me this:

Dear User, REDACTED@protonmail.com
Thank you for your interest in our service.
Our system has flagged third-party service registration emails shortly
after your account creation, which goes against the intended use of our
service and may indicate disposable account usage.
We've implemented these measures to enhance the overall reputation of
Proton Mail. This helps protect our domain and prevents the risk of our IP
being banned by third-party services, which could affect service
availability for all users.
Currently, your account has some limitations, restricting its use for
registering on third-party services.
To remove these limitations, you will need to add a verified recovery email
address or phone number, or consider upgrading your account.
Learn more about how to verify your account recovery methods here:
https://proton.me/support/set-account-recovery-methods.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
Best regards,
The Proton Anti-Abuse Team

The lesson there is to create the protonmail account well before you need
to use it to validate another account such as TeamViewer as now that
protonmail account is no good for anything even as it exists.
 
> I would also suggest googling "alternatives to teamviewer". Teamviewer 
> is the best known, but there are others. I can not recommend any of them 
> from personal experience, though.

Yeah, if TeamViewer fails, I will go down the next route as I rarely fail.
Thanks for your astute advice as I know nothing about this sharing stuff.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#144498

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 14:26:13 -0000 (UTC), Andrew <andys@nospam.com> wrote:

>Carlos E.R. wrote on Tue, 26 Nov 2024 13:33:33 +0100 :
>
>> It would be rare in the USA for an ISP to use CGNAT, because the USA 
>> reserved a huge pool of IPv4 addresses. A small cheap provider might use 
>> it, though. On countries where the pool is scarce (and instead of using 
>> IPv6) they would have to use CGNAT.
>
>Thanks for the information about Carrier-Grade NAT as I had never heard of
>it before someone mentioned it and I looked it up to see what it was.
>
>My IP address comes over the air from a few miles away and is static.

Being on a WISP would seem to be irrelevant, but having a static IP would
probably make it more likely, not less likely, that they're using NAT (not
necessarily CGNAT). I'm guessing that they're not handing out routable IPs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#144536

On 2024-11-25 20:39, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Troll, you get


                                _____________________
                    /|  /|     |                     |
                    ||__||     |    Please do not    |
                   /   O O\__  |      feed the       |
                  /          \ |       Trolls        |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `'
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

-- 
"It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarism overlaid
  the culture and independence of the ancient States of Europe."
Winston Churchill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#144479

On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 08:37:30 +0000, Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

>[snip]
>
>Another screen-sharing app is TeamViewer, and this will work through 
>CGNAT since both client and server component talk to a central (traffic 
>cop) facility in the cloud.  There no need to open any special ports in 
>your router.  So the Teamviewer company knows what you are doing and 
>when.

FYI, if you use TeamViewer within a LAN, the traffic stays within the LAN and
doesn't go to/from the TeamViewer server. That could be important to someone.

>I used this in the past when it was free to home users for 
>occasional use, but now it has stopped working for me.  There is an 
>expensive paid-for version which is more realistically priced for a 
>computer support business.  It's clearly used by the scammers who claim 
>to be from Microsoft while they empty your bank account.

I expected to see Microsoft Teams and Zoom mentioned in this thread since the
two of them are arguably the most-used in the screen sharing space.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#144481

Char Jackson wrote on Mon, 25 Nov 2024 18:19:00 -0600 :

>>Another screen-sharing app is TeamViewer, and this will work through 
>>CGNAT since both client and server component talk to a central (traffic 
>>cop) facility in the cloud.  There no need to open any special ports in 
>>your router.  So the Teamviewer company knows what you are doing and 
>>when.
> 
> FYI, if you use TeamViewer within a LAN, the traffic stays within the LAN and
> doesn't go to/from the TeamViewer server. That could be important to someone.

What I want is to give the mobile device access to my Windows screen.
Which Teamviewer is that?

https://www.teamviewer.com/en-us/download/windows/

1. TeamViewer QuickSupport (If you want to receive support:)
2. TeamViewer full client (If you want to provide support)
3. TeamViewer Host (If you want to set up unattended access to a device)
4. TeamViewer MSI Package (If you want to mass deploy TeamViewer)
5. TeamViewer Meeting (If you want to join or start a meeting)

Which of those allows a mobile device to see my screen and operate the
mouse and keyboard so that they can do stuff with an account on my PC?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#144482

On 2024-11-26 01:19, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 08:37:30 +0000, Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> [snip]
>>
>> Another screen-sharing app is TeamViewer, and this will work through
>> CGNAT since both client and server component talk to a central (traffic
>> cop) facility in the cloud.  There no need to open any special ports in
>> your router.  So the Teamviewer company knows what you are doing and
>> when.
> 
> FYI, if you use TeamViewer within a LAN, the traffic stays within the LAN and
> doesn't go to/from the TeamViewer server. That could be important to someone.

In theory, you only need the server to initiate the conversation. After 
that, the conversation might be P2P.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#144484

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 02:41:45 +0100, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
wrote:

>On 2024-11-26 01:19, Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 08:37:30 +0000, Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Another screen-sharing app is TeamViewer, and this will work through
>>> CGNAT since both client and server component talk to a central (traffic
>>> cop) facility in the cloud.  There no need to open any special ports in
>>> your router.  So the Teamviewer company knows what you are doing and
>>> when.
>> 
>> FYI, if you use TeamViewer within a LAN, the traffic stays within the LAN and
>> doesn't go to/from the TeamViewer server. That could be important to someone.
>
>In theory, you only need the server to initiate the conversation. After 
>that, the conversation might be P2P.

I've seen that suggestion before, but I don't know how that would work. It seems
like you'd be back to needing port forwarding.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#144486

On 2024-11-26 04:05, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 02:41:45 +0100, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 2024-11-26 01:19, Char Jackson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 08:37:30 +0000, Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Another screen-sharing app is TeamViewer, and this will work through
>>>> CGNAT since both client and server component talk to a central (traffic
>>>> cop) facility in the cloud.  There no need to open any special ports in
>>>> your router.  So the Teamviewer company knows what you are doing and
>>>> when.
>>>
>>> FYI, if you use TeamViewer within a LAN, the traffic stays within the LAN and
>>> doesn't go to/from the TeamViewer server. That could be important to someone.
>>
>> In theory, you only need the server to initiate the conversation. After
>> that, the conversation might be P2P.
> 
> I've seen that suggestion before, but I don't know how that would work. It seems
> like you'd be back to needing port forwarding.

I don't know (remember) exactly how it works, but it is done with VoIP too.

<https://www.reddit.com/r/HomeNetworking/comments/d6r0h0/how_do_apps_like_teamviewer_get_around_port/>


   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDP_hole_punching>

   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT_traversal>



I also found a note saying that if you are on CGNAT, they will force you 
to buy the software: (Spanish) 
<https://www.redeszone.net/noticias/redes/cg-nat-conexion-casa-teamviewer-bloquea-uso-personal/>

The reason is that they detect many users on the same IP.



-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#144499

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 13:11:15 +0100, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
wrote:

>On 2024-11-26 04:05, Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 02:41:45 +0100, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2024-11-26 01:19, Char Jackson wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 08:37:30 +0000, Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> Another screen-sharing app is TeamViewer, and this will work through
>>>>> CGNAT since both client and server component talk to a central (traffic
>>>>> cop) facility in the cloud.  There no need to open any special ports in
>>>>> your router.  So the Teamviewer company knows what you are doing and
>>>>> when.
>>>>
>>>> FYI, if you use TeamViewer within a LAN, the traffic stays within the LAN and
>>>> doesn't go to/from the TeamViewer server. That could be important to someone.
>>>
>>> In theory, you only need the server to initiate the conversation. After
>>> that, the conversation might be P2P.
>> 
>> I've seen that suggestion before, but I don't know how that would work. It seems
>> like you'd be back to needing port forwarding.
>
>I don't know (remember) exactly how it works, but it is done with VoIP too.
>
><https://www.reddit.com/r/HomeNetworking/comments/d6r0h0/how_do_apps_like_teamviewer_get_around_port/>
>
>
>   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDP_hole_punching>
>
>   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT_traversal>

Thanks! The reddit link does, indeed, explain how it works. I was limiting my
thinking to TCP (because TeamViewer uses TCP by default), where it can't work,
but UDP gets around that limitation because it's connectionless. Sweet.

<snip>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web