Limit RDP connections for certain user groups to IP


Recommended Posts

I have a win 2003 standard edition server running as a web server, with Remote Desktop to admin it. I also have a static IP address at this end.

I know I can IPSec ALL Remote Desktop connections to a set IP address, but can I somehow limit administrator groups to my static IP address, but allow a standard user to connect from any IP address?

Thanks in advance.

huh?

You can control who has access to remote desktop by group or user account. The builtin administrators group has permissions by default, but you can add other groups or users that you want to be able to remote desktop.

As to IPSec all remote desktop connections?? :blink:

You can modify your IP security policies with secpol.msc, you can create IP filters there as well -- is this what your asking?

Edited by BudMan
  tiddlie said:
No - I want to limit the access to remote desktop via remote IP address. I want only my static IP to be allowed to login via a user in the administrator group, but a 'standard' user to have access from any IP address.
This makes NO sense.. So your allowing users from any IP access.. Then all IPs have access.

Sorry but that tool controls access to the PORT 3389, it does not say oh your from IP address X you can login as a USER, but not as an Admin User.

Oh your from IP Y, you can login as Admin.

"Logon screen is only displayed if the connection is established from particular IPs or machines. Computers that do not meet the filter restrictions don't see the logon screen & won't get to try a brute force logon!"

Since your allowing any IP to use remote desktop.. Then any IP will get the login screen -- an if they have a valid user account that can remote desktop, then they can log in.

Here are the filters you can use from that tool;

--

This is the main SecureRDP page. It includes several filters that can be combined to create very complex conditions that must be met in order to be able to logon to your Terminal Server. These filters include:

IP Address: restricts the connection by checking the client IP Address.

Computer Name: restricts the connection by checking the client computer name.

MAC address: restricts the connection by checking the client PC MAC address. Note that this filter works only for computers on the same subnet as your Terminal Server.

Client Version: restricts the connection by checking the Terminal Services Client version. To make this filter more effective you should be using a customized Terminal Services Client with your own version number. This service is available in our website at http://www.terminal-services.NET.

Time Restriction: restricts the connection by checking the logon date and time.

--

What he is asking does not even make any sense to do anyway.. Users that are NOT admin should really not even have remote desktop access to a server. But since your going to allow them access -- yes if they knew the admin password, they would be able to login as an admin. Even if you blocked their remote desktop login - they could just login as a user, then run whatever they wanted as the admin account.

Edited by BudMan

Agreed -- an than can be done with a simple IP security filter using secpol, or your firewall, etc.

No need for the tool -- its pretty much just a gui that puts some settings all in the same place for people that do not now how to use their own OS ;)

Well, I have no direct access to the server. Obviously, leaving RDP open to all IP addresses is a real problem - goes without saying. Hence why I want to limit the admin access to my static IP address.

I do however, work away from time to time, and only have access to the internet via a laptop on a public or hotel lan. Should I need to access the server whilst away to do a simple task such as edit the php.ini file, or reboot IIS, it would be handy to have a somewhat locked down account that allows me these limited functions. Obviously, this needs to be accessed from a public IP addess.

If this is a roundabout way to do it - hey - we all learn, and advice is always appreciated.

And surely Windows 2003 fits into your description of that tool Budman....a 'gui that puts some settings all in the same place' - 2003 seems to be entierly made up of wizards.....

They have had wizards since the first version of windows -- does not mean you have to use them ;)

An I agree -- I would never open up RDP to the public NET.

You should access it thru a VPN or SSH/SSL tunnel, etc. This allows you to move around, just setup TLS auth to the server -- just keep your cert with you. Be it auth to the VPN/SSL or Remote Desktop or private key access to the SSH server.

This prevents bruteforce attacks, an allows you access from anywhere on the planet.

http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserve...3.mspx?mfr=true

Configuring authentication and encryption

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/895433

How to configure a Windows Server 2003 terminal server to use TLS for server authentication

For example -- you can only access my home network with OPENVPN or SSH, I keep my keys on my thumbdrive -- so I can access all of my machines from anywhere on the planet either with just putty an tunnel anything I need or with the openvpn client -- an again all services are open to me just as if I was on the local lan -- just a bit slower ;)

Putting up any type of service that only requires a password to access is just asking for trouble!

edit: BTW the IP an or fqdn to access my server along with the cert/key passwords are in my head -- so even if I loose the thumb drive -- the finder does not have access to anything.

Edited by BudMan
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Oh, what if the AI skips over some "editor's" personally cherished lie in an article? The Horror!
    • eagerly awaiting a version that runs on android tablets
    • I grew up with the Beach Boys. Even saw them in concert in the 70's. Brian suffered from mental issues all his life. May you find peace wherever you are.
    • Wikipedia suffers backlash from human editors over AI summaries, prompting feature pause by David Uzondu Wikipedia editors have pushed back against plans from the Wikimedia Foundation to test AI-generated article summaries, powered by Aya, the open-weight AI model from Cohere. The non-profit has now paused the project. The decision came after a swift and overwhelmingly negative reaction from its community. As first reported by 404Media, the plan involved a two-week, opt-in trial on the mobile version of Wikipedia. But the volunteer editors who build the encyclopedia met the idea with immediate and fierce opposition. The project's discussion page became a torrent of rejection. It included simple comments like "Yuck" and blunt declarations like "strongest possible oppose" and "Absolutely not." One editor argued that a test would cause "immediate and irreversible harm to our readers and to our reputation as a decently trustworthy and serious source." They noted that Wikipedia has built its name on being sober and reliable, not flashy. Another feared it would destroy the site's collaborative model. They argued that while the "collective mass" of human editors "evens out into a beautiful corpus," the AI would install "one singular editor with known reliability and NPOV [neutral point-of-view] issues" at the very top of an article. That same editor also noted the following: For context, this is what AI-generated summaries on the platform was supposed to look like: Image: 404Media It is not hard to see why they are so protective. The editors' fears are grounded in recent and very public failures of AI features from tech giants. For example, Google's AI overviews recently hit 1.5 billion monthly users. The feature became a laughingstock for telling people to put glue on their pizza and that a dog had played in the NBA. This is the kind of humiliating error Wikipedia's community is desperate to avoid, as it would undermine two-plus decades of careful work. We also saw the potential for reputational damage back in January. That was when Apple's AI feature falsely generated a notification claiming that Luigi Mangione had died by suicide. The man was actually alive and in custody. On the site's technical discussion page earlier today, Marshall Miller (MMiller), a Senior Director at the Wikimedia Foundation, posted an update acknowledging the feedback. He admitted, "It's clear we could have done a better job introducing this idea," and confirmed the experiment was paused. The Foundation says the goal was to explore accessibility for different readers. While this specific test is off the table, the organization still wants to use new technologies. Miller ended with a promise: "We do not have any plans for bringing a summary feature to the wikis without editor involvement." A WMF spokesperson also told 404Media that though the feature has been paused, the foundation is still interested in AI-generated summaries. The spokesperson insisted the goal was to eventually build moderation systems where "humans remain central" and called this kind of backlash feedback part of what makes Wikipedia a "truly collaborative platform."
    • I see, yeah that makes sense. I have been in situations where I barely did not crush badly on the road due to other driver starting to change lanes into another car - freaked out last second and avoided it by crashing into the side of the bridge instead. i got away because I quickly changed lanes 2 times in a couple of second and unlike that idiot I did not lose control big part of this was my car was good 😊 (audi a7) vs the old van the crashed driver was driving would AI be able to react and quickly change lanes twice both time barely avoiding collision … I don’t know my car systems pumped the breaks and tried to warn me with a beep and vibration but if I slammed the breaks the car behind me would hit me then again I have BMW driver training and a good car - so I have no idea how robot taxi would react i am not sure extreme fast lane changes would be programmed in - it is dangerous as hell unless you are FULLY aware, and have done it before but it is a general risk to do it especially in the conditions with bad weather and when you are not driving a sports car with 4 wheel drive and very good control
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      CHUNWEI earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Apprentice
      Cole Multipass went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Posting Machine
      David Uzondu earned a badge
      Posting Machine
    • One Month Later
      Stokenking earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      Kevin Jones earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      538
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      267
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      193
    4. 4
      +FloatingFatMan
      181
    5. 5
      snowy owl
      135
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!