Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)
I have a client who can't connect to a PC using RDC. I am unable to connect
to this PC as well as everybody else in house. I can ping it, and can RDC to
another PC from it.
It's running XP V.2002. In the event log there is a TermDD error ID#50. "The
Data component DATA ENCRYPTION detected an error in the protocol stream and
has disconnected the client."
I pulled up KB323497 which seemed the most relevent to the error message
except for the fact that I am doing a RDC not a RDWC which is stated in the
article.
I was hoping for some other ideas before I do the reg changes suggested in
the article.
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)
A little update:
port 3389 is listening
I tried to connect to myself by using "localhost" to connect. I got a
message saying that I was already connected, a new cosole cannot be
established.
I was able to determine that this behavior started on 7/1, before that it
worked fine.
"3DW" wrote:
> I have a client who can't connect to a PC using RDC. I am unable to connect
> to this PC as well as everybody else in house. I can ping it, and can RDC to
> another PC from it.
> It's running XP V.2002. In the event log there is a TermDD error ID#50. "The
> Data component DATA ENCRYPTION detected an error in the protocol stream and
> has disconnected the client."
> I pulled up KB323497 which seemed the most relevent to the error message
> except for the fact that I am doing a RDC not a RDWC which is stated in the
> article.
> I was hoping for some other ideas before I do the reg changes suggested in
> the article.
>
> Thanks for any help given.
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)
There is no difference in the actual client if you are using the RDWC
vs the RDC. The RDWC is just the RDC wrapped in ActiveX...
---
Jeffrey Randow (Windows Networking MVP)
jeffreyr-support@remotenetworktechnology.com
http://www.networkblog.net (My Networking Blog)
http://www.remotenetworktechnology.com (Support Site)
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:51:05 -0700, 3DW <3DW@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:
>I have a client who can't connect to a PC using RDC. I am unable to connect
>to this PC as well as everybody else in house. I can ping it, and can RDC to
>another PC from it.
>It's running XP V.2002. In the event log there is a TermDD error ID#50. "The
>Data component DATA ENCRYPTION detected an error in the protocol stream and
>has disconnected the client."
>I pulled up KB323497 which seemed the most relevent to the error message
>except for the fact that I am doing a RDC not a RDWC which is stated in the
>article.
>I was hoping for some other ideas before I do the reg changes suggested in
>the article.
>
>Thanks for any help given.
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)
Thanks for the RDC vs RDWC info. Do you think the reg changes explained in
kb323497 are the best bet?
"Jeffrey Randow (MVP)" wrote:
> There is no difference in the actual client if you are using the RDWC
> vs the RDC. The RDWC is just the RDC wrapped in ActiveX...
> ---
> Jeffrey Randow (Windows Networking MVP)
> jeffreyr-support@remotenetworktechnology.com
> http://www.networkblog.net (My Networking Blog)
> http://www.remotenetworktechnology.com (Support Site)
>
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:51:05 -0700, 3DW <3DW@discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I have a client who can't connect to a PC using RDC. I am unable to connect
> >to this PC as well as everybody else in house. I can ping it, and can RDC to
> >another PC from it.
> >It's running XP V.2002. In the event log there is a TermDD error ID#50. "The
> >Data component DATA ENCRYPTION detected an error in the protocol stream and
> >has disconnected the client."
> >I pulled up KB323497 which seemed the most relevent to the error message
> >except for the fact that I am doing a RDC not a RDWC which is stated in the
> >article.
> >I was hoping for some other ideas before I do the reg changes suggested in
> >the article.
> >
> >Thanks for any help given.
>
>
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.