Please find more information here.
Wow, this is maybe the worst anti-Dos system I have seen, it affects everyone negatively. Will not pay for teamviewer until they fix this
give me the ability to disable this on specific remote clients that will fix bad connection situations and failed connections
This is very silly !!
I am trying to recover my PC remotely that has been hit by ransomware, I have one millon issues to solve, and you are adding a layer of difficulty to my situation. Why? I didn't ask you to take precautions of how many times I will access MY pc.
This is indeed a very stupid option. I want to give support to a client who does not start Teamviewer correctly a number of times and now I have to wait until this stupid option allows me to connect again. Disable this feature immediatly if the code sees that you use a registered and offical version!
Me too. How annoying is this. I was just now idly hitting connect repeatedly waiting for a computer that had just been rebooted to come online. I waa in a real hurry which was why I was doing this and lo and behold I suddenly get locked out for an unstated time period - I think it said "wait some time". Firstly, how will telling me what that period of time is compromise security. Secondly, how do I know if I try again before that unknown period has expired whether it will restart the timeout. What an absolute farcical way of handling it. What's even more farcical is that this thread has been running for over a year and I see no acknowledgement from TV that it is a **bleep** up. I pay $1,000 per year for this s/w. I expect it to work when I need it.
I will let my subscription lapse this year and run with [competitor link removed by moderator per Community Guidelines] . This serves about 90% of my calls. No one responded to my calls here asking for pay per session so stuff them - I'm off. Watch this post get deleted in quick time too.
As an interesting aside, I'm curious about the automatic censorship on this forum software. What I actually said in that previous post was "c**k up" which in the UK is not perceived as swearing, however by replacing it with "*bleep* up" it makes it look like I used the F-word - which I didn't !
another **bleep**ed off customer here. I'm sat late at work, my chinese colleague is up in the middle of the night and we can't use TeamViewer because it wont connect agaon for a mystery amount of time.
Flakey connections are super common around the world - this "feature" makes me want to scream
whats with this stupid security feature.
developers, just implement a effing capcha already if your reason is security.
this terrible design is still going on... this is the worst attempt at bruteforce blocking i've ever seen. currently unable to connect to a client that needs help now, not some unknown time into the future from now.
Why would you want to block yourself from connectivty? I'm trying to get in to my machines - i'm autnenticated on your client, but it says I cannot connect due to too many frequent connections. It only takes a couple tries to get this annoying feature. Be nice to be able to disable it.
I agree...... it's a really unprofessional and annoying feature. I cannot imagine having to tell the customer that you are at the mercy of this software for an unkown amount of time. I only use teamviewer in places where 3389 is blocked.
5 mins, and it's still telling me blocked. This is why I won't pay for Teamtimewaster.
Maybe put the ACTUAL TIME in so we know exactly how long to wait?
Also, a WARNING would be really helpful. Like, "the next connection that is aborted will lead to a wait."
I had no idea this was going to happen. Frustrating as **bleep**.
Maybe put the ACTUAL TIME in so we know exactly how long to wait?Also, a WARNING would be really helpful. Like, "the next connection that is aborted will lead to a wait."I had no idea this was going to happen. Frustrating as **bleep**.
Exactly !! There are so many ways in which this ridiculous *feature* could be made tolerable, but the longer this thread goes on the more I am beginning to think that TV do not listen to their users, or read their own community messages, and the more likely I am to switch to ConnectWise having signed up for a free trial when this first happened.
Found this thread after googling this stupid error.Congratulations, I"m never buying a license, and moving to [deleted by moderator].This was the most inconvenient thing I've ever seen.I went from new potential customer to "**bleep**ed off" in a matter of 30 minutes.Great Job
Me too, paid Team Viewer 13, customers Team Viewer was taking forever to open so I clicked connect a few too many times it seems & the customer has been waiting with health patients sitting waiting for my team viewer to connect due to this silly overprotective mode without an eta for me to give to the customer ridiculous, luckily after it not connecting I realised I have 2 IP Address thanks to VPN & just switched off VPN & it worked as it was a different IP address... it's a lame security feature which a brute force attacker could easily switch IP Addresses.
FYI to all if you are desperate & have vpn just either connect to vpn or disconect vpn if you were on it already this will be your work around till TeamViewer gets their act together if they ever do as I can see this thread has been open for a year or so...!
Brute force protection is a necessary part of the software and unfortunately for the protection of our users and the system this cannot be removed. We understand this thread is still open, but even though we understand the feature can cause some frustration, it must be kept in place.
Also, please note that the IP switch method is not true for most cases.
That's a very depressing answer if you represent TeamViewer. What about all the suggestions there have been in this thread of making it tolerable such as firstly warning it's going to happen and secondly giving an ETA of when one can try again. I think my decision to evaluate ConnectWise was a good one.
I can understand the need for brute force attack protection, however when this happend to me it was when I had remotely rebooted the remote client, I clicked on connect before it had fully restarted and got the message "Team Viewer is not running ont the client" (or somethign like that), so tried again, same message, tried again and got locked out. So it was not as if I had tried quickly in sucession with incorrect credentials, it was just that the first few times TV was not fully running and able to accept connections, so really think there is a flaw in the logic somewhere. At the very least a message should be displayed on the remote client stating what has happened and allowing the user on the remote client to over rule the system and allow the connection. Also a bit disapointing it has taken so long for someone at TV to reply to this thread.
I have to agree - we regularly get connections dropping in China and I have team members regularly get locked out because of trying to connect on a poor quality connection.
I wish we had not pushed TeamViewer to our colleagues abroad in years gone by, as we're now stuck with third parties who expect us to use it.
Very dissapointing reply from TeamViewer.
Are you serious right now? That's the answer? CLEARLY, Team Viewer was created and desgined by team members who are no longer existent within your company.You guys are unable to update and change the code, I'm willing to believe that.If you'd like some consultation on proper DR Testing, Dev, QA, ...any ITIL needs at all... reach out to me.Your answer solidified my desire to NOT use this software anywhere currently...Didn't realize you were still in Beta as it's clearly not Production-Ready. You should probably warn users of that before roping them in.
Who are you trying to fool?This "brute force protection" is counting connection attempts that never even got to the password exchange phase and connection attempts to computers that are assigned to us with easy access.
^ Very good point! Plus, what's the value in "adding" to our list if that's not the case? Is our own credentials not worth some sort of whitelist?
Brute force protection is not only there to protect the remote side.
Even if you try to establish too many connections quickly to multiple different devices, this is still covered by brute force as there are too many requests being sent to the server that can be used to overload our servers, this is why there is no "Override" button.
Also, please read up the thread. One of our supporters, Jeremy has replied multiple times to this thread with the same answer. I am definitely not the first staff member here.
Making sure that the server is not overloaded or attacked is clearly to our customers advantage.
I'm not sure how you could argue that making sure the service works is purely to our advantage and not to our customers.
"Brute force" is a term that refers to password cracking, not denial of service attacks. Are you saying that a human manually tapping the refresh button 10 times in 10 seconds is enough traffic to be classified as a denial of service attack by the teamviewer network? That requires a lot more explanation before it will be plausible.
But if we assume that's true, that implies the teamviewer network is way too small to meet its demands due to being underfunded or poorly architected.
But let's assume that this network problem is actually intrinsic to all remote desktop systems rather than just teamviewer and any higher performance on other services is a result of them temporarily operating at a loss in order to try to compete with teamviewer. In that case, the development team should take a long hard look at the use cases "flaky or intermittent connection", "old or overburdened pc", and "intermittent pc uptime". It should be designed so people can connect and stay connected in these cases without having to manually poke the button until they get connected or banned.
Or they can just keep telling their PR people to spin it as a good thing.