ad-assurance - [AD-Assurance] RE: BitLocker operational issues
Subject: Meeting the InCommon Assurance profile criteria using Active Directory
List archive
- From: "Michael W. Brogan" <>
- To: "" <>
- Subject: [AD-Assurance] RE: BitLocker operational issues
- Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 21:17:21 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Authentication-results: sfpop-ironport01.merit.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
If I’m not mistaken, syskey is on by default and I don’t think you can turn it off. All you configure with syskey utility is where you want the decryption key stored: locally on disk, on removable media, or in
an admin’s head. The default is to store on local disk. --Michael From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Rank, Mark sorry ... poor choice of wording... guess what i was getting at was would it make sense to just pursue an AM for Microsoft's proprietary encryption to just eliminate
the need for Bitlocker or syskey. mark -------------------------------------------------- Mark Rank UCSF Information Technology Services (ITS) phn:414-331-1476 -------------------------------------------------- From:
[] on behalf of Ron Thielen [] 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. Ron From:
[]
On Behalf Of Rank, Mark Why again did we rule out an alternate means for Microsoft's own proprietary encryption for the credential store?
Just curious. Mark -------------------------------------------------- Mark Rank UCSF Information Technology Services (ITS) phn:414-331-1476 -------------------------------------------------- From:
[] on behalf of Ron Thielen [] 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. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh831507.aspx#BKMK_VHD and 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. Ron |
- [AD-Assurance] BitLocker operational issues, Ron Thielen, 06/07/2013
- [AD-Assurance] RE: BitLocker operational issues, Rank, Mark, 06/07/2013
- [AD-Assurance] RE: BitLocker operational issues, Ron Thielen, 06/07/2013
- [AD-Assurance] RE: BitLocker operational issues, Rank, Mark, 06/07/2013
- [AD-Assurance] RE: BitLocker operational issues, Michael W. Brogan, 06/07/2013
- [AD-Assurance] RE: BitLocker operational issues, Rank, Mark, 06/07/2013
- [AD-Assurance] RE: BitLocker operational issues, Eric Goodman, 06/07/2013
- [AD-Assurance] RE: BitLocker operational issues, Ron Thielen, 06/07/2013
- [AD-Assurance] RE: BitLocker operational issues, Michael W. Brogan, 06/07/2013
- [AD-Assurance] RE: BitLocker operational issues, Rank, Mark, 06/07/2013
- [AD-Assurance] RE: BitLocker operational issues, Ron Thielen, 06/07/2013
- [AD-Assurance] RE: BitLocker operational issues, Ron Thielen, 06/07/2013
- Re: [AD-Assurance] RE: BitLocker operational issues, David Walker, 06/10/2013
- [AD-Assurance] RE: BitLocker operational issues, Rank, Mark, 06/07/2013
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.