<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.technet.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Steve Riley on Security : group policy</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/group+policy/default.aspx</link><description>Tags: group policy</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>Ethernet and WiFi and Bluetooth, oh my!</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/2008/10/15/ethernet-and-wifi-and-bluetooth-oh-my.aspx</link><pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:16:48 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:3136959</guid><dc:creator>Steve Riley</dc:creator><slash:comments>19</slash:comments><comments>http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/comments/3136959.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/commentrss.aspx?PostID=3136959</wfw:commentRss><wfw:comment>http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/rsscomments.aspx?PostID=3136959</wfw:comment><description>&lt;p&gt;Customers have long requested a way to configure a computer to automatically disable its wireless NIC when its Ethernet is in use. Many third-party utilities can do this for you, but neither XP nor Vista have a built-in way to accomplish this, nor will Windows 7. Although having both NICs enabled first appears to cause a security issue, in reality that would be true only if both of the following were also true: &lt;/p&gt;  &lt;ul&gt;   &lt;li&gt;The user is logged on as a local administrator&lt;/li&gt;    &lt;li&gt;The user, or some code the user runs, enables IP routing&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;  &lt;p&gt;By default, all forms of IP routing (including NIC bridging) are disabled. Only local administrators (or group policy) can enable them. So the risk, actually, is minimal. &lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;If you have a stroll through group policy, you'll discover this setting: &amp;quot;Prohibit installation and configuration of Network Bridge on your DNS domain network&amp;quot; (more &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc783558.aspx"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc758455.aspx"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;). This setting allows you turn a computer into a router that bridges two networks. The bridging works only when one of the interfaces is in the same DNS namespace it was in when the bridge setting was enabled, and it works only when the Windows firewall is &lt;em&gt;disabled&lt;/em&gt; on both interfaces (&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/2007/05/29/technet-exploring-the-windows-vista-firewall.aspx"&gt;never a good idea&lt;/a&gt;). Additionally, regardless of the group policy setting, the function doesn’t even appear as an option when the user is logged in as a non-admin. The group policy setting simply removes the option from people who are local admins of their computers. So here's a way you can remove the ability even for local admins to enable routing. &lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;However, let me admit that I wish we &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; have a way to implement your request, but for an entirely different reason: IP address preservation. Consider what happens when I'm on my own corpnet in my office. I put my laptop in its dock, which is connected to the Ethernet. I never bother disabling my wireless (I'm lazy). So whenever I'm in my office I'm taking up two IP addresses: one on the Ethernet and one on the wireless. Such wasteful profligacy, I know! (Note this isn’t a problem for any Bluetooth adapter, which always uses &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/220874"&gt;APIPA&lt;/a&gt; in its default configuration; I can’t imagine a scenario where you’d want Bluetooth to use DHCP.)&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;If you agree with me that this is something we should address post Windows 7, not for &amp;quot;security&amp;quot; reasons but as a good general networking practice of being conservative with address allocation, please speak up. Now's the time for your input.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=3136959" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/wireless/default.aspx">wireless</category><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/configuration/default.aspx">configuration</category><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/networking/default.aspx">networking</category><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/group+policy/default.aspx">group policy</category><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/Windows+7/default.aspx">Windows 7</category></item><item><title>Directly connect to your corpnet with IPsec and IPv6</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/2008/06/25/directly-connect-to-your-corpnet-with-ipsec-and-ipv6.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:55:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:3078070</guid><dc:creator>Steve Riley</dc:creator><slash:comments>26</slash:comments><comments>http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/comments/3078070.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/commentrss.aspx?PostID=3078070</wfw:commentRss><wfw:comment>http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/rsscomments.aspx?PostID=3078070</wfw:comment><description>&lt;P&gt;Contrary to popular belief, the rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. Well, ok, no &lt;EM&gt;actual&lt;/EM&gt; rumors, but hey, one can dream, huh? My spring calendar was full of events in Asia and Australia, then TechEd US seemed to suddenly appear out of nowhere! So I've been kinda swamped. I've missed writing here; it's good to get back into the swing.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;At TechEd this year, I gave a presentation called &lt;STRONG&gt;"21st century networking: time to throw away your medieval gateways."&lt;/STRONG&gt; (Actually, I've given this same talk before, at events in Amsterdam, Brussels, Oslo, and numerous on-campus customer meetings. It's time to bring the knowledge to the masses.)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I described an idea of using IPv6, IPsec, NAP, and group policy to build a pretty slick replacement for clunky VPN gateways. Turns out we've been piloting this very idea on our internal corpnet. Like a good little bunny I got myself enrolled in the thing and -- pardon the unattractive gushing -- this thing &lt;EM&gt;rawks!&lt;/EM&gt; Here's a brief rundown of the parts you'd configure on &lt;STRONG&gt;managed clients&lt;/STRONG&gt;:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Windows Vista Enterprise or Ultimate editions (those with Business edition and Software Assurance can upgrade to Enterprise)&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;That are domain-joined&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Users run as &lt;A href="http://blogs.msdn.com/aaron_margosis/" target=_blank mce_href="http://blogs.msdn.com/aaron_margosis/"&gt;non-admin&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;&lt;A href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/grouppolicy/default.aspx" target=_blank mce_href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/grouppolicy/default.aspx"&gt;Group policy&lt;/A&gt; applies numerous settings&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;&lt;A href="http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/0d75f774-8514-4c9e-ac08-4c21f5c6c2d91033.mspx?mfr=true" target=_blank mce_href="http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/0d75f774-8514-4c9e-ac08-4c21f5c6c2d91033.mspx?mfr=true"&gt;UAC&lt;/A&gt; is enabled&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;&lt;A href="http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/c61f2a12-8ae6-4957-b031-97b4d762cf311033.mspx?mfr=true" target=_blank mce_href="http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/c61f2a12-8ae6-4957-b031-97b4d762cf311033.mspx?mfr=true"&gt;BitLocker&lt;/A&gt; is configured to protect confidential information stored offline&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;The &lt;A href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/network/bb545423.aspx" target=_blank mce_href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/network/bb545423.aspx"&gt;Windows Firewall&lt;/A&gt; is enabled&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;&lt;A href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/network/bb545879.aspx" target=_blank mce_href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/network/bb545879.aspx"&gt;NAP&lt;/A&gt; is used for checking health&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;&lt;A href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/forefront/clientsecurity/default.aspx" target=_blank mce_href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/forefront/clientsecurity/default.aspx"&gt;Forefront Client Security&lt;/A&gt; for keeping malware off the box&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;&lt;A href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb742533.aspx" target=_blank mce_href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb742533.aspx"&gt;Smart cards&lt;/A&gt; for strong authentication of users&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;&lt;A href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/network/bb531150.aspx" target=_blank mce_href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/network/bb531150.aspx"&gt;IPsec&lt;/A&gt; is required for connection authentication and traffic encryption&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;&lt;A href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/network/bb530961.aspx" target=_blank mce_href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/network/bb530961.aspx"&gt;IPv6&lt;/A&gt; is required for worldwide Internet connectivity&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;A DNS suffix search list represents the data center name space&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Static IPv6 DNS servers provide name resolution for hosts in the data center&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;P&gt;What does this give you? True &lt;A href="http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/anywhereaccess/default.mspx" target=_blank mce_href="http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/anywhereaccess/default.mspx"&gt;anywhere access&lt;/A&gt;, &lt;A href="http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/execmail/2007/02-06secureaccess.mspx" target=_blank mce_href="http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/execmail/2007/02-06secureaccess.mspx"&gt;anywhere in the world&lt;/A&gt;, directly to corpnet resources from managed and secure client PCs. The Internet has replaced private WAN links for good reason: enormous cost benefits. The only thing holding us back from fully utilizing this development has been a lack of way to enforce and monitor the security of clients not physically located within the corpnet. Well, those days are over. Now you can build PCs that are trusted just as if they were on the corpnet, without knowing or caring anything about the underlying network connections. And let me tell you, it's as addictive as a few other substances I could mention, but will refrain, since this is (I hope) a family blog :)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Maybe you've heard of the notion of "&lt;A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-perimeterisation" target=_blank mce_href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-perimeterisation"&gt;deperimeterization&lt;/A&gt;." Taken to its extreme, I think it's a bit silly. To put a SQL Server directly on the Internet is just plain stupid -- not because I don't think I could keep it protected, but simply because that's unnecessary risk. Only my web server -- and no one else -- should be talking to my SQL Server. But that web server will be in the same subnet as the SQL Server, and IPsec policies used also here will govern who can connect to the SQL Server. &lt;STRONG&gt;Warning to any and all network DMZs: your days are numbered!&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Shrink your perimeter to that which really matters -- your data center. &lt;EM&gt;All&lt;/EM&gt; your clients live (as we would say in the olden days) "on the outside of the firewall." Now then, there are two kinds of clients. Managed clients, as I described above, establish IPsec-authenticated/encrypted, group-policy-configured, NAP-enforced IPv6 connections directly to corpnet resources without going through any kind of access gateway. The router connecting you to your ISP is fully sufficient for blocking denial of service attempts. Be sure to follow my advice in "&lt;A href="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/2006/07/10/Configure-your-router-to-block-DOS-attempts.aspx" target=_blank mce_href="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/2006/07/10/Configure-your-router-to-block-DOS-attempts.aspx"&gt;Configure your router to block DOS attempts&lt;/A&gt;," and then add two more rules to permit incoming port udp/500 and IP protocol 50 over IPv6. That's it. No NATing or other unnatural network acts are required (finally, you can stop lying to your significant other about why you squirrel yourself away in the computer room all those weekend nights).&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Unmanaged clients will continue to use IPv4 to access published Web and Win32 applications through a gateway like &lt;A href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/forefront/edgesecurity/bb687299.aspx" target=_blank mce_href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/forefront/edgesecurity/bb687299.aspx"&gt;IAG&lt;/A&gt;. Since you can't trust these clients nor can you trust the data they're throwing at you, you have to inspect and validate at the perimeter. You can take advantage of IAG's &lt;A href="http://www.microsoft.com/forefront/edgesecurity/iag/whitepapers.mspx" target=_blank mce_href="http://www.microsoft.com/forefront/edgesecurity/iag/whitepapers.mspx"&gt;application-modifying capabilities&lt;/A&gt; to "wrap" security around poorly-written web apps; you can even download an ActiveX control to unmanaged clients to perform some basic health checking, policy enforcement, and cache clearing. None of these eliminates the final requirement to continue inspecting and removing malware from servers where users store data: &lt;A href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/forefront/serversecurity/bb734822.aspx" target=_blank mce_href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/forefront/serversecurity/bb734822.aspx"&gt;Exchange&lt;/A&gt;, &lt;A href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/forefront/serversecurity/bb734828.aspx" target=_blank mce_href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/forefront/serversecurity/bb734828.aspx"&gt;SharePoint&lt;/A&gt;, &lt;A href="http://www.microsoft.com/forefront/serversecurity/ocs/default.mspx" target=_blank mce_href="http://www.microsoft.com/forefront/serversecurity/ocs/default.mspx"&gt;Office Communications Server&lt;/A&gt;, and &lt;A href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/forefront/clientsecurity/default.aspx" target=_blank mce_href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/forefront/clientsecurity/default.aspx"&gt;file servers&lt;/A&gt;.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Machines are mobile, data is mobile.&lt;/STRONG&gt; The mainframes and large desktop PCs of the past posses an effective security attribute: the heaviness of the machines. You couldn't easily saunter out the front door with a PC-AT in your pocket! These days, we all line our pockets with tiny little mobile phones stuffed with 16GB of storage. It's now a fact: data moves. And like water, data moves wherever it can, as rapidly as it can, often beyond your control if you don't prepare for that. With properly-configured and managed clients we can enjoy a single access and authentication experience no matter where the computer is physically located. For example: I can sit in my house and enter '"http://internal-web-site-name" in my browser. The DNS suffix search list adds the appropriate suffix, my browser's resolver performs an IPv6 name lookup, and my computer makes an authenticated and encrypted connection, after it meets the NAP policy, directly to that internal server. Very nice. As far as I'm concerned, there's no difference between the Internet and my corpnet. It's all &lt;EM&gt;just there.&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;For a while now many of you know I've been speaking and writing, mostly at the conceptual level, about the day when such a way of remote computing will arise. Well, my friends, that day is now. You can indeed build it now, with the products you have. I won't admit it's all peaches and cream: there's a fair number of moving parts here, it's true. But most of these moving parts are parts you're already familiar with: I'm simply encouraging you to move them in a specific way. You'll need to do some custom scripting for client-side connection diagnostics, but that's about it.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;My next step is to create a more detailed guide, which I plan to publish through TechNet Magazine. I'm targeting (but not promising) the October issue. The article will include greater details about configuring your infrastructure to support the managed clients I describe.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I've lost track of the swelling number of individual conference attendees and the plethora of email writers who've expressed a desire to build this in their own environments. The one common thread from everyone is "I want to do it now!" Folks, it's really pretty exciting for me to see so many of you ready to cross the chasm from the perdition of paleo-networking (layer upon endless, complex layer of DMZs) into the paradise of flat, simple, cheap, and secure access to information. If you haven't yet, please take the time to read through some of our information (especially Scott Charney's paper) on &lt;A href="http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/endtoendtrust/default.mspx" target=_blank mce_href="http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/endtoendtrust/default.mspx"&gt;end-to-end trust&lt;/A&gt;. Friends, the idea I describe above is the plumbing for realizing the end-to-end trust vision.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=3078070" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/Windows+Vista/default.aspx">Windows Vista</category><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/NAP/default.aspx">NAP</category><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/authentication/default.aspx">authentication</category><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/TechEd/default.aspx">TechEd</category><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/Active+Directory/default.aspx">Active Directory</category><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/configuration/default.aspx">configuration</category><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/VPN/default.aspx">VPN</category><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/IPsec/default.aspx">IPsec</category><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/networking/default.aspx">networking</category><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/BitLocker/default.aspx">BitLocker</category><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/encryption/default.aspx">encryption</category><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/group+policy/default.aspx">group policy</category><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/SSL_2F00_HTTPS/default.aspx">SSL/HTTPS</category></item><item><title>Changing the SSL cipher order in Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/2007/11/06/changing-the-ssl-cipher-order-in-internet-explorer-7-on-windows-vista.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:37:47 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:2354495</guid><dc:creator>Steve Riley</dc:creator><slash:comments>13</slash:comments><comments>http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/comments/2354495.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/commentrss.aspx?PostID=2354495</wfw:commentRss><wfw:comment>http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/rsscomments.aspx?PostID=2354495</wfw:comment><description>&lt;p&gt;Recently, the question of using AES for SSL has come up in the newsgroups and at some conferences. When IE makes an HTTPS connection to a web server, it offers a list of cipher supported cipher suites. The server then selects the first one from the list that it can match. The default order that IE follows is this:&lt;/p&gt; &lt;blockquote&gt; &lt;p&gt;TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA&lt;br&gt;TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA&lt;br&gt;TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA&lt;br&gt;TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA&lt;br&gt;TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256&lt;br&gt;TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P384&lt;br&gt;TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P521&lt;br&gt;TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA_P256&lt;br&gt;TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA_P384&lt;br&gt;TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA_P521&lt;br&gt;TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256&lt;br&gt;TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P384&lt;br&gt;TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P521&lt;br&gt;TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA_P256&lt;br&gt;TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA_P384&lt;br&gt;TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA_P521&lt;br&gt;TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA&lt;br&gt;TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA&lt;br&gt;TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA&lt;br&gt;TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5&lt;br&gt;SSL_CK_RC4_128_WITH_MD5&lt;br&gt;SSL_CK_DES_192_EDE3_CBC_WITH_MD5&lt;br&gt;TLS_RSA_WITH_NULL_MD5&lt;br&gt;TLS_RSA_WITH_NULL_SHA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; &lt;p&gt;When you study the list, you'll see that IE presents the algorithms in decreasing order of strength, but places the shorter bit-lengths first. Why? If longer bit lengths are more secure, shouldn't they be listed first?&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Remember, encryption is the thing that buys you time against &lt;a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/community/columns/security/essays/10imlaws.mspx?mfr=true" target="_blank"&gt;Immutable Law #3&lt;/a&gt;. But performing encryption itself takes time. So when choosing an algorithm and a bit length, one important consideration is to ask yourself this question: "How long do I need for my secrets to remain secret?"&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;We configure IE to use shorter bit lengths -- but never shorter than 128 bits, except for the last two that use no encryption -- because it gives you better performance than the longer bit lengths. In almost all cases, a 128-bit key is more than sufficient to protect the information you're exchanging over HTTPS.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;However, if you require something longer, and want to change the default, you can. Here's how.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;ol&gt; &lt;li&gt;Open your group policy editor by entering &lt;strong&gt;gpedit.msc&lt;/strong&gt; at a command prompt.&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Choose &lt;strong&gt;Computer Configuration | Administrative Templates | Network | SSL Configuration Settings&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;There's only one item here: &lt;strong&gt;SSL Cipher Suite Order&lt;/strong&gt;. Open it.&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Select &lt;strong&gt;Enabled&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Now here's where you need to tread carefully. You'll see that the list is the same as above, but rather than formatted nicely with carriage returns, they're simply separated with commas. The first item in the list is:&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;strong&gt;TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;And the second item is:&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;strong&gt;TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;Cursor your way through the list. Change that first &lt;strong&gt;128&lt;/strong&gt; to &lt;strong&gt;256&lt;/strong&gt;. Then cursor forward a bit more and change the &lt;strong&gt;256&lt;/strong&gt; to &lt;strong&gt;128&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Feel free to change other orders, too, but keep your changes within algorithm types.&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;OK&lt;/strong&gt; your way out, close the group policy editor, and reboot.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt; &lt;p&gt;Most of you probably won't need to do this -- I haven't. But for those who have regulatory requirements for using 256-bit AES, follow these steps and you'll be compliant.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=2354495" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/Windows+Vista/default.aspx">Windows Vista</category><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/configuration/default.aspx">configuration</category><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/encryption/default.aspx">encryption</category><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/group+policy/default.aspx">group policy</category><category domain="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/tags/SSL_2F00_HTTPS/default.aspx">SSL/HTTPS</category></item></channel></rss>