[THIN] Re: Giving expernal parties access to your Citrix published applications

  • From: "Steve Greenberg" <steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 18:33:21 -0700

I see your point but I still prefer to use CAG/AAC for these situations with
the following benefits:


1)       CAG is a dedicated LINUX box, CSG is Windows! Who would want IIS in
the DMZ?

2)       Forward going support, Citrix is dropping CSG soon

3)       Ability to offer VPN, WI or portal style content with the same

4)       Ability to do endpoint security checking, I certainly would want to
enforce virus/worm protection on any machine gaining access to my

5)       Ability to present content with various levels of access depending
the type of device, type of user, whether they using a known devices, virus
protection, etc.  i.e. if the end user is coming from the subnet of the B to
B partner then they can read/write a certain document, if they are coming
from somewhere else it is read-only, and countless other if/then



Can you tell I like CAG/ACC? :-)


Steve Greenberg

Thin Client Computing

34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453

Scottsdale, AZ 85262

(602) 432-8649





From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Jeff Pitsch
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:37 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Giving expernal parties access to your Citrix published


Put the external users in their own domain.  I believe the external
connector would work for you although I'm not 100% on how that is licensed
in regards to partners and vendors.  The external connector would cover you
from a CAL perspective.  I also think a segmented fam would be the best way
to handle it.  I would also use CSG/WI (separate installation because of
domain and branding (if you wanted different branding for external users)).
The PS license server could easily be shared if needed.  this is exactly the
scenario that it was designed for. 

I have to respectfully disagree with use CAG/AAC.  It wouldn't get you any
real advantage over simply using WI/CSG.  The granularity that AAC is for is
controlling the level of trust to your internal network in regards to
shares, websites, etc.  It sounds more like you want to simply deliver
applications and not ahve those users mix with your employees.  


Jeff Pitsch
Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
Provision Networks VIP

Forums not enough?
Get support from the experts at your business
http://jeffpitschconsulting.com <http://jeffpitschconsulting.com/> 


On 9/5/06, Michael Pardee <pardeemp.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: 

We have a MFXP Farm of approximately 4500 concurrent users all on
Windows2003 SP1 servers.  We have always brought Vendors in to a secure area
via VPN to very specific servers.  We now have a need to bring in close to
500 concurrent users from a Vendor/Partner and I'm curious how others are
doing this. 

As with everything, the easiest way is the least secure, so just giving them
accounts in our AD and letting them hit our internal Farm via WI is probably
not the best way to go.  I'm thinking we may actually want to bring up an
external facing PS4 Farm for the Vendors/Partners.  When we do that we need
new ZDCs, license servers, etc.  I guess we'd need an external Microsoft
license server and a bunch of TSCals.  Maybe even a different WI server to
ensure seperation from the regular employee access portal. 

Just curious how others allow external parties access to your applications.

Thanks in advance.


Michael Pardee
www.blindsquirrel.org <http://www.blindsquirrel.org/>  


Other related posts: