Brett Lymn wrote:
Oddly this non-standard AD seems to interoperate with the Solaris ldap
client, an openldap client and with MIT kerberos just fine.
Seems to, or actually does? Or can be be pounded in after agreeing to
non-Open licenses?
Point me to some more recent articles or documentation (without NDA
requirements) which counter the following:
http://www.ddj.com/184404225
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/05/15/000515oplivingston.html
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2000/0511kerberos.html
http://archive.salon.com/tech/log/2000/05/11/slashdot_censor/
http://technews.acm.org/articles/2000-2/0405w.html#item14
http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/11/0153247&mode=nested&threshold=3
In short, there seems to have been no announcement that the problem is
resolved. That's a strange silence for a marketing company.
I'm not arguing that the Squid patch does not work, nor that it is not
possible for some systems vendors to have signed agreements to get at
the proprietary information. Nor will I say that there is no *short
term* advantage.
What I am saying is that without careful planning, injudicious use of
the patch leads to further entrenchment of an unsound service and the
unsound system in which it is embedded rather than as a transition to a
more stable, secure and maintainable infrastructure.
-Lars
