ad-assurance - Re: [AD-Assurance] Notes from last Friday's (6/21/2013) AD Assurance call
Subject: Meeting the InCommon Assurance profile criteria using Active Directory
List archive
- From: David Walker <>
- To:
- Subject: Re: [AD-Assurance] Notes from last Friday's (6/21/2013) AD Assurance call
- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 14:41:27 -0700
- Authentication-results: sfpop-ironport07.merit.edu; dkim=pass (signature verified)
Thanks, Jeff. Regarding...Other places where RC4 are used would be for syskey (protecting the password store) and in some cases HTTPS where the protocol is using the RC4 cipher. I think we've decided that RC4 is not strong enough for encryption of the password store (hence the BitLocker recommendation), but its use in NTLMv2, Kerberos (and HTTPS?) is still in question. David On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 21:30 +0000, Capehart,Jeffrey D wrote: Regarding: From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of David Walker
|
- [AD-Assurance] Notes from last Friday's (6/21/2013) AD Assurance call, David Walker, 06/24/2013
- RE: [AD-Assurance] Notes from last Friday's (6/21/2013) AD Assurance call, Capehart,Jeffrey D, 06/24/2013
- Re: [AD-Assurance] Notes from last Friday's (6/21/2013) AD Assurance call, David Walker, 06/24/2013
- RE: [AD-Assurance] Notes from last Friday's (6/21/2013) AD Assurance call, Eric Goodman, 06/26/2013
- Re: [AD-Assurance] Notes from last Friday's (6/21/2013) AD Assurance call, David Walker, 06/24/2013
- RE: [AD-Assurance] Notes from last Friday's (6/21/2013) AD Assurance call, Capehart,Jeffrey D, 06/24/2013
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.