Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

ad-assurance - [AD-Assurance] RE: BitLocker operational issues

Subject: Meeting the InCommon Assurance profile criteria using Active Directory

List archive

[AD-Assurance] RE: BitLocker operational issues

Chronological Thread 
  • From: Ron Thielen <>
  • To: "" <>
  • Subject: [AD-Assurance] RE: BitLocker operational issues
  • Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 20:20:06 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none

We didn’t rule out AM.  We said that if BitLocker can be used, then you don’t need AM.  If it can’t be used, then you need AM.




From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Rank, Mark
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 3:16 PM
Subject: [AD-Assurance] RE: BitLocker operational issues



Why again did we rule out an alternate means for Microsoft's own proprietary encryption for the credential store?


Just curious.





Mark Rank
Project Manager - Identity & Access Mgt

UCSF Information Technology Services (ITS)



From: [] on behalf of Ron Thielen []
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 11:59 AM
Subject: [AD-Assurance] BitLocker operational issues

I raised the question about BitLocker operational issues, because something was  nagging at the back of my mind.  I asked the Windows admins and they pointed me in the right direction.


It turns out that there is a significant issue that may affect some institutions.  BitLocker is not supported in virtual environments by either Microsoft or VMware.  We run some of our domain controllers on VMware VMs, so this is certainly an issue for us.



I guess we have to decide whether to move our VMs to physical hardware and lose the advantages that virtualization provides or submit an alternative means statement for RC4.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page