Unattended robot connected to Orchestrator cloud. Networking requirements

Hi colleages,
Orchestrator cloud or on premise connects with Robot Unattended using DRP, remote desktop protocol.
What are the networking requirements (Firewall, server that launch the request, specific pc/server setup, …) in order to use RDP from orchestrator cloud to execute a bot on a unattended robot?
Thanks in advance.


Check below link

Mark as solution if this helps



Thanks ksrinu070184 for your quick answer.
So firewall rule is needed from cloud.uipath.com to robot unattended trough ports 3389 - Required for RDP automation.
There is no additional requirements?
It seems very generic and non-secure for networking departments.

1 Like

Welcome to community @chema.gomez_Setesca!

You need to read documentation that @Srini84 has posted…

Robots use HTTPS protocol for communication and that is secure way, while RDP protocol which you are mentioning is insecure and unsupported for this kind of connection.

RDP can be used internally after Robot is executing an process but you can not connect robot with Orchestrator with RDP protocol.

Happy automation


Thanks, I’m going to make some testing to validate.

Hi All
I have created a new trial with studio, robot attended and unattended, both are correctly connected and visible from orchestrator cloud
New project can be created, published from studio and executed from attended

When I’m trying to execute a job over unattended robot an error is generated


Domain specified doesn’t exist or can not be reached.

I’m testing form a local instalacion, should pc name contains a declared domain and name published on dns in order to be reached?

Thanks in advance

Hello @chema.gomez_Setesca,

I am currently at work where I have a domain computer but I have my personal computer and I will try to connect with that.

I will do a little bit of testing but can you try to put .\username to login to that computer so it is ‘.’ which you put in front not whole computer name?


Hi Dino,
I have tried with this username structure with the same wrong result.
Did you have the opportunity to test it?
Thanks for your effort.