[39606] in Kerberos
Re: ldap tls question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ken Hornstein via Kerberos)
Thu Apr 16 13:56:40 2026
Message-Id: <202604161756.63GHuRAt011066@hedwig.cmf.nrl.navy.mil>
To: "kerberos@mit.edu" <kerberos@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <YQBPR0101MB8463BB6CB69E8AE87459833AFA232@YQBPR0101MB8463.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 13:56:26 -0400
From: Ken Hornstein via Kerberos <kerberos@mit.edu>
Reply-To: Ken Hornstein <kenh@cmf.nrl.navy.mil>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: kerberos-bounces@mit.edu
>>> I personally wouldn't say ldaps is "much more secure" than start_tls
>
>What if you add tls 1.3 channel binding?
Was the part where I said, "It's not something I care to argue about"
unclear?
--Ken
________________________________________________
Kerberos mailing list Kerberos@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos
