Forwardable TGT - Windows vs MIT behavior?

2016-04-23 Thread Ray Van Dolson
Using PuTTY from a domain-joined Windows 7 machine, with that machine's PuTTY stack configured to allow credential delegation and connecting to a RHEL7 server, also joined to AD but *not* configured in AD to be trusted for delegation, I do not get a TGT added to my cache when I connect. However, i

Re: Forwardable TGT - Windows vs MIT behavior?

2016-04-23 Thread Ray Van Dolson
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 09:41:47AM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > Using PuTTY from a domain-joined Windows 7 machine, with that machine's > PuTTY stack configured to allow credential delegation and connecting to > a RHEL7 server, also joined to AD but *not* configured in AD to be

Re: Forwardable TGT - Windows vs MIT behavior?

2016-04-23 Thread Ray Van Dolson
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 09:47:59AM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 09:41:47AM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > Using PuTTY from a domain-joined Windows 7 machine, with that machine's > > PuTTY stack configured to allow credential delegation and conne

Re: Building your own vs. deploying OS packaged version of MIT Kerberos?

2016-05-13 Thread Ray Van Dolson
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:47:09AM -0400, Tareq Alrashid wrote: > The new world order seem to demand some adjustments to how we do > things nowadays with on premise and cloud service deployment. We > know how many OS’es come with prebuilt versions Kerberos RHEL/OS > X…etc., and I am starting to p