On 07/30/2013 03:55 PM, Chris Hartman wrote:

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Dmitri Pal <dpal@redhat.com> wrote:
And as you see all the binds were using a negotiated method.
I wonder if the policy can be tuned to allow only Kerberos negotiated binds. IMO this would be optimal.

There is no Group Policy that can enforce a specific type of bind that I'm aware. While secure binds are always supported, there is only a toggle between "require secure binds" and "allow secure binds." I don't think there is any other tuning available.

I think there is something to be said for still requiring SSL despite the fact that binds are encrypted with the keytab as it helps mitigate man-in-the-middle attacks.

AFAIU Kerberos negotiation if implemented properly (which I think is the case here) mitigates MIM attacks making SSL really not needed.
MSFT is just paranoid about it. The SSL might be needed when you do a password change but not the bind but I suspect for simplicity MSFT decided to implement all or nothing approach. Very unfortunate, I should say... Not for the first time. 

Thank you,
Dmitri Pal

Sr. Engineering Manager for IdM portfolio
Red Hat Inc.

Looking to carve out IT costs?