LSPush vs LSAgent

[BrianF]

I searched the KB articles but could not find anything describing the difference between lspush and the new lsagent. Should we be installing lsagent on PCs that have lspush? And should we remove lspush from those systems?

From what I have read so far, it just looks like the lsagent works similar to lspush, except it can run itself on a schedule. Previously with lspush I had to create a script to run it on a schedule I created in task scheduler. The new lsagent also has the cloud proxy option.

[Esben_D]

The reason why LsPush isn't as secure via the internet is because you would have to open your LsPush port to the internet. This is why we've always recommended to use a VPN with LsPush if you want to scan remote assets.

For LsAgent, regardless of the method you use (direct server connection or cloud relay) the data is always sent securely via HTTPS. When using the cloud relay, the Lansweeper server will do an outbound connection, so you won't have to open incoming ports for the relay.

[Esben_D]

LsPush is certainly sticking around for some time. In addition, we do not want to take features away which legacy license holders have had for a long time. If you have a legacy license, you should be able to continue to get what you paid for.

It is much more likely that new features will be implemented into LsAgent only. Even if LsPush would be updated to scan new features, this information would not be accessible to people with legacy licenses. So you can see the conflict there.

[AG]

Can we assume that you will continue to maintain LsPush or will it die and we have to by a new license (we use a legacy one) if we want to continue to use a similar funtionality?

[Bruce_B]

LsAgent is superior to almost all ways to LsPush, except that due to the way that LsPush can be called, it can be added to a logonscript, which allows for more accurate logon tracking. That specific functionality will not be able to be performed by LsAgent.

You're free to keep using LsPush, though LsAgent will likely be easier to maintain in the long run in your environment and will be able to scan over the internet, which LsPush cannot (securely) do.

[BrianF]

Bruce.B wrote:
LsAgent is superior to almost all ways to LsPush, except that due to the way that LsPush can be called, it can be added to a logonscript, which allows for more accurate logon tracking. That specific functionality will not be able to be performed by LsAgent.

You're free to keep using LsPush, though LsAgent will likely be easier to maintain in the long run in your environment and will be able to scan over the internet, which LsPush cannot (securely) do.

We have LsPush reporting through the internet. So does that mean it's not encrypted? Also, is LSAgent secure when connecting directly to a FQDN, or is it only secure when going to the cloud proxy?