You can have Windows 95 and NT 4 machines running on a Mixed Mode or
Native Mode AD.  The Authentication protocols of NTLM and Kerberos 5 are
configurable in Group Policies.  So if/when your network goes to all 2k/XP
machines, you can then move over the authentication protocol to Kerberos
if you want to.  Just for kicks, look at group policy and search for NTLM.
(Sorry I do not have Admin rights where I am to verify the location).  The
default Authentication protocol should be NTLM for a domain brought up for
the first time in Mixed or Native modes.  I have not tested the Native
mode fresh install without going through Mixed mode to verify.

~B

On Tue, 14 May 2002, Dozal, Tim wrote:

> I am no AD expert but my experience is that in Mixed mode you will use NTLM (i.e NT 
>4) authentication (plain test transmission)) when connecting between hosts on the 
>network.  If your infrastructure has any non-windows 2000/XP machines then you must 
>use mixed mode.  If you are building a whole new environment and have no need to 
>connect to legacy OS's then you can run in native mode and take advantage of the 
>higher level security of the Kerberos authentication model (I think MD5 crypto on the 
>transmissions).  Most migrations will not be able to do this because they are not 
>replacing every host with a windows 2000 or newer OS.
>
> I welcome people to expand on this for my own knowledge also.
>
> -Tim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: leon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 5:50 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Active Directory Security Migration Questions:
>
>
> Hi
>
> I had a coworker ask me the following questions and I was unsure of the answers to 
>most so I thought I might ask for some help.
>
>
> 1)��What does native mode bring in terms of granular user rights and group policy 
>that mixed mode does not?
> 2)� Are there specific security advantages to using native mode over mixed mode?  If 
>so what are they?
>
>
> I really appreciate the help and thanks again.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Leon
>
>

Reply via email to