windows xp builtin vpn client vs untangle client software

[lloydster]

I have a site to site vpn configuration with two UT boxes, but for the road warriors and myself we are simply using the builtin windows xp vpn client to connect to the main site and it works perfectly.

However, in the documentation it clearly tells you to use the client downloaded from the UT box. Is there a specific reason to use the UT client instead of the windows xp client?

[pirateghost]

i wasnt aware the built in windows client had openvpn....

[dmorris]

lol

my thoughts exactly...
what built-in client?

[hlarsen]

i think it has an built-in pptp client, i doubt it supports OpenVPN.

[sky-knight]

XP has the ability to connect to PPTP or L2TP VPNs. If you're good with interface work and some registry mangling you can get IPSec to work.

None of the above work with Untangle's OpenVPN implementation, which IMHO is INFINITELY better. My customers agree, it's simple and secure. They love it, I don't get calls to support it, therefore I love it.

[Mathiau]

PPTP = massive security hole..

or used to be at least.

[sky-knight]

The protocol has some issues, but it's far from as bad as the security pundits will report.

[lloydster]

Well call it ignorance on my part because I didn't know any better.

It was as simple as opening network connections, click on create a new connection, select connect to the network at my workplace, then select vpn, select a company name, then choose auto dial or not, input hostname, then create it only for my use, and then create a shortcut and click finish. Then you click on the shortcut and it opens a window, select properties, select the options tab and select include windows logon domain, ok and close.

Then I simply open the shortcut, input my password and click on connect.

It works.

I connect to my exchange server, open file shares and basically do everything as though I'm logged in locally but with slower speeds ie a normal VPN connection.

As I said, call it ignorance is bliss. But it works. How it works, I can't answer. There was no registry mangling or obscure settings, and all the other protocol comments you guys made I can't comment on either. But it works.

Hence my question

So, do I fix what's not broken because I would obviously rather go for the better, more robust supported option if it has advantages.

[pazza3564]

I would be guessing you have a Server (probably 2003) running Routing and Remote Access.

[lloydster]

My setup is two ADSL routers maintaining dyndns hostnames for the dynamic ip's, both connected to a UT box on each side and on the main site I have a W2K8R2 small business server which controls the domain and runs exchange, intranet site etc.

Strangely enough I haven't enabled remote access yet on the server so you cannot access the web interface for mail and so on.

Using the xp vpn connection I am logged on to the actual domain using my normal domain credentials and password.