Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

per-entity - Re: [Per-Entity] deploying TLS on the MDQ server

Subject: Per-Entity Metadata Working Group

List archive

Re: [Per-Entity] deploying TLS on the MDQ server


Chronological Thread 
  • From: "Cantor, Scott" <>
  • To: Tom Scavo <>
  • Cc: Per-Entity Metadata Working Group <>
  • Subject: Re: [Per-Entity] deploying TLS on the MDQ server
  • Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 14:02:26 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: spf=pass (sender IP is 164.107.81.222) smtp.mailfrom=osu.edu; incommon.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;incommon.org; dmarc=bestguesspass action=none header.from=osu.edu;
  • Ironport-phdr: 9a23:KWmKWhzGR9nvwTLXCy+O+j09IxM/srCxBDY+r6Qd0uMQIJqq85mqBkHD//Il1AaPBtqLra8fwLOL+4nbGkU+or+5+EgYd5JNUxJXwe43pCcHRPC/NEvgMfTxZDY7FskRHHVs/nW8LFQHUJ2mPw6aijSI4DUTAhTyMxZubqSwQ9aKzpf/6+fnx5rWKz5DjSS6KeduNg69pBvWnsgQnYZ4LKstkF3ErmYeKMpMwmY9b3mamQr7/IP4x5Vk7zga86Yq/shcVr+8JYw/VqEeATg7ZTNmrPb3vAXOGFPcrkAXVX8bx18RW1DI
  • Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
  • Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
On 9/9/16, 9:53 AM,
"
on behalf of Tom Scavo"
<
on behalf of
>
wrote:

> Okay, putting both of those together, I conclude we need TLS on the
> MDQ server to address your concern (and it has nothing to do with
> validUntil). But what about the other scenario? What can/should we
> provide to AD FS (which currently has no security options whatsoever)?

I think answering that would require much more specific understanding of how
it works and what it really does or supports. If we're going to consider
doing work or expending resources, we should do so while informed.

-- Scott



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page