Headless Mac Pro?

[macmesser]

Would it be possible to run a Mac Pro without a monitor and connect via LogMeIn or something similar? This would be great if I could run a web server and other low user input applications, like the data recovery program I'm using now.

If this is feasible and advisable, what would be the best way to implement it?

 

[chrfr]

Would it be possible to run a Mac Pro without a monitor and connect via LogMeIn or something similar? This would be great if I could run a web server and other low user input applications, like the data recovery program I'm using now.

If this is feasible and advisable, what would be the best way to implement it?

It works fine. Just use the built-in screen sharing.

 

[macmesser]

It works fine. Just use the built-in screen sharing.

Cool. I signed up for the free LogMeIn trial and will check it out.

 

[chrfr]

Cool. I signed up for the free LogMeIn trial and will check it out.

You don't need LogMeIn if your computer is on your local network.

 

[SDAVE]

If it's not on the local network, you can use TeamViewer. It's free.

If it's on the local network, use the built in screen sharing as mentioned by chrfr.

It can be found in: System » Library » CoreServices » Screen Sharing.app

 

[monkeybagel]

I would recommend using ssh if you just need console access, or VNC if you need local access.

I do not trust the "free" screen sharing applications, and they have complete and total access to your computer and files at all times. If their system is compromised, it would lead to serious trouble.

 

[SDAVE]

I would recommend using ssh if you just need console access, or VNC if you need local access.

I do not trust the "free" screen sharing applications, and they have complete and total access to your computer and files at all times. If their system is compromised, it would lead to serious trouble.

TeamViewer is legit...

 

[24Frames]

You could use Screen Sharing from another Mac.
Google Chrome also allows you to do this, so you could control the Mac Pro from a Windows computer, very simple to setup.

 

[Dr. Stealth]

I do the same....

I do the same thing using ARD (Apple remote Desktop). It works awesome.

 

[minifridge1138]

I do the same thing using ARD (Apple remote Desktop). It works awesome.

What is the difference between Screen Sharing (which is included in OS X) and Apple Remote Desktop (which is $79 from App Store)?

Sorry if you see this as thread jacking...

 

[chrfr]

What is the difference between Screen Sharing (which is included in OS X) and Apple Remote Desktop (which is $79 from App Store)?

Sorry if you see this as thread jacking...

Remote Desktop does a lot more than just screen sharing. It's a tool to manage multiple computers, install software, etc. For the typical home user, it's not at all useful.

 

[brand]

II do not trust the "free" screen sharing applications, and they have complete and total access to your computer and files at all times. If their system is compromised, it would lead to serious trouble.

Have you bothered to research the security features that they use and how they are implemented before just deciding that you do not trust them? Are you saying that you do trust the "paid" screen sharing applications? You are aware that if a paid for system is compromised that is would lead to serious trouble? Just because a program costs money does not make it any more secure than a free program.

It seems kinds narrow minded to me.

 

[monkeybagel]

Have you bothered to research the security features that they use and how they are implemented before just deciding that you do not trust them? Are you saying that you do trust the "paid" screen sharing applications? You are aware that if a paid for system is compromised that is would lead to serious trouble? Just because a program costs money does not make it any more secure than a free program.

It seems kinds narrow minded to me.

I do not trust my data if it is going through someones network if it is not encrypted. Many of these services record session information and log that on their servers. if you do trust your data with just anybody, that sounds very naive to me.

I will add that Bomgar makes an excellent product that you can keep on your network and you are not passing data through a third party. That is the only product I use and would use.

 

[brand]

I do not trust my data if it is going through someones network if it is not encrypted.

Both of the services mentioned prior to your post are encrypted. So why you are trying to bring up encryption when the only services mentioned at that time were encrypted make no sense.

Many of these services record session information and log that on their servers

Care to give a few examples since there are so many.

 

[SDAVE]

I do not trust my data if it is going through someones network if it is not encrypted. Many of these services record session information and log that on their servers. if you do trust your data with just anybody, that sounds very naive to me.

I will add that Bomgar makes an excellent product that you can keep on your network and you are not passing data through a third party. That is the only product I use and would use.

No passwords/data is stored on their servers. TeamViewer is used in high end companies (see list). It's a point-to-point service with 256bit security.

Regardless, if you're "so worried" about your data, you probably shouldn't be using services from Google, Facebook, etc. So please spare us the nonsense.

 

[monkeybagel]

No passwords/data is stored on their servers. TeamViewer is used in high end companies (see list). It's a point-to-point service with 256bit security.

Regardless, if you're "so worried" about your data, you probably shouldn't be using services from Google, Facebook, etc. So please spare us the nonsense.

I do not use services from Google typically. Particularly their mail, etc.

I didn't say TeamViewer is not "legit." I am sure it is a good company and probably has a good track record. DropBox did too until they allowed log in using any password to any of their accounts in a huge security oversight.

What I am saying, is why take risks with data (assuming you are dealing with sensitive data - you may not be and may not care who has it)? If you can SSH or tunnel into a machine on the local network?

TeamViewer would be a good application for a quick remote troubleshooting session. But I would not leave it running 24/7 on a machine. But what I do with the machines I am responsible for is up to me, and what you do is up to you.

 

[SDAVE]

I do not use services from Google typically. Particularly their mail, etc.

I didn't say TeamViewer is not "legit." I am sure it is a good company and probably has a good track record. DropBox did too until they allowed log in using any password to any of their accounts in a huge security oversight.

What I am saying, is why take risks with data (assuming you are dealing with sensitive data - you may not be and may not care who has it)? If you can SSH or tunnel into a machine on the local network?

TeamViewer would be a good application for a quick remote troubleshooting session. But I would not leave it running 24/7 on a machine. But what I do with the machines I am responsible for is up to me, and what you do is up to you.

Sure, I am not trying to enforce my opinion onto you.

However, your reply was very uninformed when you mentioned "trust" when it comes to such services. You need to dig a little deeper as to how they work. It's a point-to-point service, it doesn't go through their servers.

Regardless, you can definitely use the OS X included "Screen sharing" (which is kind of hidden) even remotely, I think. You just need to enable certain ports in your firewall/router.

If you are an advanced user and like tinkering around, sure, you can SSH into it.

However, TeamViewer is fantastic and I've troubleshooted devices 10,000 miles away, no problem. The end user didn't even need to fiddle with any ports, just ran the app and emailed me the passcode. It was even a Windows machine.

 

[monkeybagel]

Sure, I am not trying to enforce my opinion onto you.

However, your reply was very uninformed when you mentioned "trust" when it comes to such services. You need to dig a little deeper as to how they work. It's a point-to-point service, it doesn't go through their servers.

Regardless, you can definitely use the OS X included "Screen sharing" (which is kind of hidden) even remotely, I think. You just need to enable certain ports in your firewall/router.

If you are an advanced user and like tinkering around, sure, you can SSH into it.

However, TeamViewer is fantastic and I've troubleshooted devices 10,000 miles away, no problem. The end user didn't even need to fiddle with any ports, just ran the app and emailed me the passcode. It was even a Windows machine.

That is good that it has worked well for you.

I know that GoToAssist, GoToMeeting, etc. will record the session as an option to allow the user to download the session to review later, or to allow the technician's manager to review it, etc. From what I understand, the host computer being remoted into maintains a TCP connection outbound to Citrix servers (in GoToAssist case) and when you start the remote session, their server acts as a proxy, hence bypassing all firewall rules unless DPI is set up and properly configured. This "cloud" stuff is a network administrator's nightmare with the current state of firewall, etc.

I was not trying to challenge your knowledge, but just offer an option based on my experiences.