Correct.

Much of the underlying protocol was completely rewritten with Kerberos v5.
It's a whole new beast with zero backwards compatibility, which is why I'm
not worried about it.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Kingslan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Kerberos Vulnerability
> 
> 
> Given the high visibility of ANYTHING Microsoft, they have to 
> review these issues - even though there is likely no 
> connection - other than name....
> 
> Rick Kingslan  MCSE, MCSA, MCT
> Microsoft MVP - Active Directory
> Associate Expert
> Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Myrick, Todd
> (NIH/CIT)
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 2:56 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> 
> Understood,
> 
> I just saw this quote "Microsoft officials said that, while 
> they're still researching the issue, they don't believe that 
> operating system is vulnerable." and know that some MSFT 
> people read this list, and maybe they would be willing to 
> enlighten the list when they have something more concrete.  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Todd
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:17 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Kerberos Vulnerability
> 
> 
> AD won't be affected. The vulnerability was found in Kerberos 
> v4, while AD is built on Kerberos v5. Very different beast.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
> Sr. Systems Administrator
> Inovis Inc.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Myrick, Todd (NIH/CIT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:12 PM
> > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> > Subject: [ActiveDir] Kerberos Vulnerability
> > 
> > 
> > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,937385,00.asp
> > 
> > Just saw this and wondered if anyone on the list has a 
> comment about 
> > it.  I sent a request to our MS TAM for comment on the article and 
> > will post anything I get to the list.
> > 
> > Todd Myrick
> > List info   : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
> > List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm
> > List archive:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/
> > 
> List info   : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
> List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm
> List archive: 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/
> 
> List info   : 
> http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
> List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm
> List archive: 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/
> 
> 
> 
> List info   : 
> http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
> List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm
> List archive: 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/
> 
List info   : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/

Reply via email to