English

Your language: ▼

Every day we offer FREE licensed software you’d have to buy otherwise.

$10.00

EXPIRED

Giveaway of the day — LiteManager 5.0

LiteManager — remote access software for remote administration of computers!

$10.00 EXPIRED

User rating: 54 (89%) 7 (11%) 11 comments

LiteManager 5.0 was available as a giveaway on May 28, 2021!

Download trialLiteManager 5.0

Today Giveaway of the Day

$29.95

free today

Win PDF Editor 3.7

Modify and edit PDF documents easily!

Proceed to download page

LiteManager — remote access software for remote administration of computers over the Internet or remote control in a local network, for distant learning, providing remote support to users and supervising work activity of employees.

Advantages of the product:

* You can control and view the desktop of a remote computer. Remote Desktop control.
* File manager for working with files and folders.
* Remote task manager
* Power management
* Text chat and audio and video chat
* Telnet control of computer via command line.
* Device manager and inventory.
* Screen recorder.
* Network map.
* Connecting a server with a dynamic IP address and cascade connection functionality that allows to work in complex networks.
* Remote installation and update.
* Server search.
* Registry editor.
* Connect by ID and NoIP application.

System Requirements:

Windows XP/ Vista/ 7/ 8/ 10

Publisher:

LiteManagerTeam

Homepage:

http://litemanager.com

File Size:

41.7 MB

Licence details:

Lifetime

Price:

$10.00

How would you improve LiteManager 5.0?

All ideas (0) Top five ideas Searches Leave feedback

No similar feedback found. Feel free to add yours!

Leave feedback Go to the project page ›

GIVEAWAY download basket

Software Informer

Developed by Informer Technologies, Inc.

ArcSoft WebCam Companion

Create videos and snapshots using your webcam camera.

Garmin Express

Transfer data between your computer and Garmin devices.

Avro Keyboard

Developed by OmicronLab

Comments on LiteManager 5.0

Thank you for voting!
Please add a comment explaining the reason behind your vote.

You can also add comment viaFacebook

Hello everybody!
The best way for connection for ID through Internet is using your own ID server (NOIP), because most of the free servers located in east europe, and work not very fast for other continents

private NOIP (ID server)
http://www.litemanager.com/support/Knowledgebase_en/instr_noip_private/

If you have any questions or problem with LiteManager contact the support@litemanager.com.
LM really not so fast like TeamViewer or Anydesk, but you can use it.

Reply | Comment by Denis Yahnovets – Last year – Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)

Seems to work pretty good fro me. You just have to use the correct program, server or viewer on each machine. Thanks Litemanager and GAOTD.

Reply | Comment by Dean – Last year – Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+1)

remote access to a computer over the internet is just asking to be pwned, remote telnet to a computer over the internet is just plain insane!

Remote access limited to LAN access is more sensible and IF remote access over the internet is a necesity then the LAN should be accessed via strong and well encrypted VPN hosted on that LAN so the remote access be completely concealed inside the LAN and VPN extension of the LAN and not subjectable to random probes and followed by in depth probes and access attempts and denial of service attacks...
It is conspicuous in its total absence in the description above any mention of what level of authentication is enforcable, single or two factor or better, any mention of strong encryption of the connections...

from the rom3.chm file:

"Security and data protection.

All data LiteManager sends over the network is encrypted with the secure encryption algorithms certified by the Microsoft Corporation. You can specify the security level in the server settings. Two security subsystems are available with the ability to assign rights to each user: password protection and Windows security system."

I have two problems with that first claim... 1:Microsoft Corporation are not an industry recognised encryption certification body! 2:Microsoft are renowned for implimenting the most breakable encryption systems on the planet as well as programming vulnerabilities that bypasses the encryption completely!

Two security subsystems: basically password and windows security system... both inherantly vulnerable to either infiltration/exfiltration and denial of service. If windows login interface is exposed to an attacker it is trivial to brute force names and fail a few common password choices and lockout any account for both local and remote logins And digest login authentication if used as an access control layer is not secure as it is reusable once exfiltrated by any method known or unknown... And access control lists are only as good as the programming of the buffers and parsing sanity checks preventing remote code execution...

If you value your ownership of your own computer systems and the data held on them... please do not host on your desktop windows operating system any lite server or microsoft powered server on the public internet via your domestic internet connection as it will have known and unknown buffer overrun vulnerabilites and be inviting state sponsored and in independant criminal hackers to take ownership of your hardware and data for their own purposes. The only saving grace this product will have is it is not well known or heavily used by big buisnesses so is probably not part of a list of commonly attacked servers but security through obscurity is one of the weakest forms of security as there are spiders out there scanning all ports not just targeted ports and whatever port this hides on will be found eventually and attract unwanted attention.

remote access to a computer over the internet is just asking to be pwned, remote telnet to a computer over the internet is just plain insane!

Remote access limited to LAN access is more sensible and IF remote access over the internet is a necesity then the LAN should be accessed via strong and well encrypted VPN hosted on that LAN so the remote access be completely concealed inside the LAN and VPN extension of the LAN and not subjectable to random probes and followed by in depth probes and access attempts and denial of service attacks...
It is conspicuous in its total absence in the description above any mention of what level of authentication is enforcable, single or two factor or better, any mention of strong encryption of the connections...

from the rom3.chm file:

"Security and data protection.

All data LiteManager sends over the network is encrypted with the secure encryption algorithms certified by the Microsoft Corporation. You can specify the security level in the server settings. Two security subsystems are available with the ability to assign rights to each user: password protection and Windows security system."

I have two problems with that first claim... 1:Microsoft Corporation are not an industry recognised encryption certification body! 2:Microsoft are renowned for implimenting the most breakable encryption systems on the planet as well as programming vulnerabilities that bypasses the encryption completely!

Two security subsystems: basically password and windows security system... both inherantly vulnerable to either infiltration/exfiltration and denial of service. If windows login interface is exposed to an attacker it is trivial to brute force names and fail a few common password choices and lockout any account for both local and remote logins And digest login authentication if used as an access control layer is not secure as it is reusable once exfiltrated by any method known or unknown... And access control lists are only as good as the programming of the buffers and parsing sanity checks preventing remote code execution...

If you value your ownership of your own computer systems and the data held on them... please do not host on your desktop windows operating system any lite server or microsoft powered server on the public internet via your domestic internet connection as it will have known and unknown buffer overrun vulnerabilites and be inviting state sponsored and in independant criminal hackers to take ownership of your hardware and data for their own purposes. The only saving grace this product will have is it is not well known or heavily used by big buisnesses so is probably not part of a list of commonly attacked servers but security through obscurity is one of the weakest forms of security as there are spiders out there scanning all ports not just targeted ports and whatever port this hides on will be found eventually and attract unwanted attention.

Save | Cancel

Reply | Comment by TK – Last year – Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)

Haven't tried this on yet as I am away at the moment...

For an alternative that works REALLY well, also try ANYDESK
(http://anydesk.com)

Reply | Comment by buzz123 – Last year – Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-1)

This is a very reasonably priced cross/multi-platform utility (one-time-buy/no subscription, lifetime updates) loaded with features typically found in subscription titles.

It's interesting to look at one of the multiple times LiteManager v4.9 was previously offered: someone has obviously artificially downvoted almost every user comment dozens of times (and one comment -966 times!):

LiteManager 4.9 was available as a giveaway on February 25, 2019
https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/litemanager-4-9/

Who knew this particular sector was so competitive?

Reply | Comment by HMarx – Last year – Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+8)

HMarx, Yes, I think it would be really great if I could make it work. That's why I gave it a second chance with the new version.

Reply | Comment by Iain Harrison – Last year – Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+1)

These may prove useful:

Especially if a previous installation exists:
http://www.litemanager.com/support/help_en/Before_the_installation/

http://www.litemanager.com/comparison/

User support forum:
http://www.litemanager.com/forum/en/

Announcement of New LiteManager 5:
http://www.litemanager.com/forum/en/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1323&sid=21e38d0cacea49e61e9c12018d207d24

Also, I wonder if there is a valid reason for the lack of "https" security for their website as my web browser issues a warning when visiting it.

Hopefully "Denis Y" will be monitoring our comments to answer any questions as in previous times this title was offered.

Reply | Comment by HMarx – Last year – Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+3)

HMarx, the modern commonplace use of https over most of the internet is a knee-jerk reaction to national laws demanding Internet Service Providers to log URL's visited for security services and law enforcment access and the alleged bad behavior that some Internet Service Providers around the world were transparently caching and injecting into the unencrypted http conenctions their own money making adverts without the end users consent or control.
Certain script providers also heavily overload their URL's with private data that can be sniffed by ISP's and others on the same network if the infrastucture favours spying, like open access point internet cafes, or rouge cellular repeaters placed to hijack victims smart devices data connections and sniff all the traffic and calls placed via them.
If you don't login or post via web page forms any personal information( like email addresses etc.) and do not care about the visited precise URL being logged by your ISP there is not much wrong with having a purely informational website unencrypted. Google want's you to prefer encrypted websites as it restricts other 3rd parties and ISP's performing big data mining of googles webapi scripts... so only google can track you using their code.
I did check and if you go to buy on their website they use a choice of two 3rd party ecommerce providers, both of which enforce industry standard TLS1.2 or better.
Caveat being their forum is run on same server so logins are NOT transfered in a secure manner so do NOT use any login credentials you have ever used on any other site! When I write the forum logins are not transfered in a secure manner I really mean it! They do not even use the digest method or even the URLencode methods but litterally post the PLAIN TEXT user name and password as a html FORM POST!

"POST /forum/en/ucp.php?mode=login HTTP/1.1
...
username=user1&password=password1234567890&sid=364c666aa77c700d0242ba500639f6f4&redirect=index.php&login=Login&redirect=.%2Fucp.php%3Fmode%3Dlogin"

The fake user name "user1" and fake password "password1234567890" are plain and clear to see! That lack of security awareness just re-enforces my concern about the real and present dangers of placing this products server on the internet. If you must use todays giveaway... keep it locked away inside an encrypted wifi access point and only accessible on the private LAN.

"POST /forum/en/ucp.php?mode=login HTTP/1.1
...
username=user1&password=password1234567890&sid=364c666aa77c700d0242ba500639f6f4&redirect=index.php&login=Login&redirect=.%2Fucp.php%3Fmode%3Dlogin"

The fake user name "user1" and fake password "password1234567890" are plain and clear to see! That lack of security awareness just re-enforces my concern about the real and present dangers of placing this products server on the internet. If you must use todays giveaway... keep it locked away inside an encrypted wifi access point and only accessible on the private LAN.

Save | Cancel

Reply | Comment by TK – Last year – Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+4)

I couldn't get the previous version to work, and I can't get this to work either. At least it is consistent!

Reply | Comment by Iain Harrison – Last year – Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+10)

...to be specific, I can get it to connect through no-ip across the internet, but that's unusably slow, with screen refresh at only 1fps. I can't get it to connect directly across the LAN.