The mailing list for users of the eduroam Configuration Assistant Tool (CAT)

[Rok Papež <rok.papez AT arnes.si>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hello.

One of the more generic problems with x.509 PKI is that authorization
mechanisms aren't well defined. Lack of documentation is nice, clients
not reporting why authorization failed are even a nicer touch.

Certificate verification is (probably) the same for (high security)
online banking and (not so high security) wireless access. But
security classification usually depends on the organisation/employee.

Maybe we can ask Microsoft to stop actively promoting the use of non
native supplicants and EAP-PWD? Of course, if we want good user
experiance, and low helpdesk utililization, we'll need to invest into
that.....

On 01/27/2016 10:25 AM, Stefan Winter wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> and maybe they could even document it?
> 
> But that would be asked too much I guess. Grrr.
> 
> Stefan
> 
> Am 26.01.2016 um 10:16 schrieb 
> A.L.M.Buxey AT lboro.ac.uk:
>> Hi,
>> 
>>> Could someone verify this please.
>> 
>> confirmed. now wonder if they expect some other certificate
>> requirement?? :/
>> 
>> 
>> alan
>> 
> 
> 


- -- 
lep pozdrav,
Rok Papež.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWqP+hAAoJEMBDv510LxWtkJ8IAJ3rCwY74enhH+wgWuUFeKs+
ZCVI7XvINuvt8mbWn6EsNkbAzgMfCgOBXlfYGqa5DuZYR7zUPanlkaA9rMrXRzpL
G6zZHhamBjsNbiVCRWl7aF4tbL1St3EzG9CqDnXFdwbGyfI8MEg+awoP0av2pDRC
w67xfQqO9Oo9InlSsXypnR3I6cJq2pEAWZmZzemHOuxtRkPhug2sNOt+xnJT0jUY
rtc8A/w85HRtzYy3+IeRy1lPdxcfP2RLaURYQzQePSL8d2I2DIUqFUohrTRxiaKr
YXQLufSY9FsgDCu9SWfmfOBVEsCH/w//qjkt2G67utr+/jurlVS8ehgsUvuFZxE=
=IXej
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----