|
|
Post by browserz on Mar 30, 2020 17:32:00 GMT
Thanks for your art to simplify things
|
|
|
|
Post by happysccm on Mar 31, 2020 4:08:02 GMT
Agreed! Would love to move all our custom stuff to UI++. Can only use minimum of LDAPS at work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason on Mar 31, 2020 14:59:25 GMT
As noted in that thread, the advisory is not about or for LDAPS, it is about signing the LDAP traffic and binding the channel securely. Thus yes, UI++ has used secure channel binding and signing from the beginning.
> "Can only use minimum of LDAPS at work."
Are you sure this is a requirement? I don't know of a way to require this at an AD level. Is the network blocking port 389? As noted, don't confuse secure the LDAP channel with LDAPS, they are two different things.
|
|
|
|
Post by happysccm on Mar 31, 2020 23:20:15 GMT
Thanks Jason, you are right. I checked with the team - They have blocked plain-text over 389/any possible bad things and said we are good to go with this
|
|
