Windows Cached Credentials/Security Verifier

[lonervamp at gmail.com (Michael Dickey)]

I don't know the exact mechanics, but I believe it drops the oldest one.

If you have access to domain machines and accounts, you could probably test
this. If you set the number down to 2 and grab yourself 3 logins, you could
start to verify which one is bumped off as you get to the third one.

Personally, setting this value to 5 is no better than the default value of
10. I personally prefer to use 1. This pretty much means the primary user
will be the only cached credential. If you have concerns about your admin
staff then being locked out, you could make a case for 2. But really, it's
those admin credentials you really don't want lingering all over. For any
non-mobile systems that you expect to always be on a domain-enabled network,
you could make a good case for 0.

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:30 AM, k41zen <k41zen at live.co.uk> wrote:

> So the business wants users to be able to log onto laptops using
> cached domain credentials whilst they are offline.
>
> The supplier has limited the number of cached credentials/security
> verifier's available to 5.
>
> My question is how is the "security verifier's table" (for want of a
> better description) managed? If it is full and as a 6th unique account
> I logon connected to the domain, which entry gets overwritten? Does it
> overwrite the oldest verifier that hasn't been logged on recently?
> Does it overwrite the first one in the table?
>
> I'm finding little info on the algorithm used (if any).
>
> Grateful for any insight.
> _______________________________________________
> Pauldotcom mailing list
> Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com
> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.pauldotcom.com/pipermail/pauldotcom/attachments/20091016/50022d54/attachment.htm