Forum Discussion
Remove TLS 1.0/1.1 and 3DES Dependencies
Even I went ahead and tried to research on the topic, no such information is available.
| Protocol | Agent |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | MacOutlook/14.7.2.170228+(Intel+Mac+OS+X+10.9.6) |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+Office/16.0+(Windows+NT+10.0;+Microsoft+Outlook+16.0.11126;+Pro) |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+Office/16.0+(Windows+NT+10.0;+Microsoft+Outlook+16.0.11126;+Pro) |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | MacOutlook/14.7.2.170228+(Intel+Mac+OS+X+10.9.6) |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+Office/14.0+(Windows+NT+6.1;+Microsoft+Outlook+14.0.7190;+Pro) |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+Office/16.0+(Windows+NT+10.0;+Microsoft+Outlook+16.0.11126;+Pro) |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+Office/16.0+(Windows+NT+10.0;+Microsoft+Outlook+16.0.11126;+Pro) |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+Office/16.0+(Windows+NT+10.0;+Microsoft+Outlook+16.0.11126;+Pro) |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+Office/16.0+(Windows+NT+6.3;+Microsoft+Outlook+16.0.11126;+Pro) |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | MacOutlook/14.7.2.170228+(Intel+Mac+OS+X+10.9.6) |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Android-SAMSUNG-SM-G570F/101.80000 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+Office/16.0+(Windows+NT+10.0;+Microsoft+Outlook+16.0.11126;+Pro) |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | MacOutlook/14.7.2.170228+(Intel+Mac+OS+X+10.9.6) |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+Office/14.0+(Windows+NT+6.1;+Microsoft+Outlook+14.0.7190;+Pro) |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Android-SAMSUNG-SM-G570F/101.700 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | MacOutlook/14.7.2.170228+(Intel+Mac+OS+X+10.9.6) |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+Office/16.0+(Windows+NT+10.0;+Microsoft+Outlook+16.0.11126;+Pro) |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Apple-iPhone8C1/1602.92 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | - |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | MacOutlook/14.7.2.170228+(Intel+Mac+OS+X+10.9.6) |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+BITS/7.5 |
| TLS1.0/1.1 | Microsoft+Office/16.0+(Windows+NT+10.0;+Microsoft+Outlook+16.0.10730;+Pro)
|
Not sure why Microsoft+Office/16.0+(Windows+NT+10.0;+Microsoft+Outlook+16.0.10730;+Pro) still using TLS 1.0/1.1 ?
Several Apple-iPhone
What / Why would the two items be on the list?
- Alan_McFarlaneFeb 19, 2019Iron ContributorLooking on Sunday night at the reports of my ~20 client tenants, there seems to have been a change. None of them now contain any Win10 (Office16/15) entries. So I’m wondering if there was a bug in the reports and it’s been fixed!
Anyone see the same?
The reports look a bit sparse also however. MNy have no rows. Perhaps the school holidays last week meant less folk were connecting? The reports clearly aren’t cumulative over all time, as entries from an older report don’t always appear in a later one. I wonder what needs to happen to make a device appear, is it just to connect to read mail etc, or it that it needs to re-authenticate e.g. after 14 days etc?- Tim HunterFeb 20, 2019Iron Contributor
I just re-ran the report this morning and have different results also and I did not make any changes or modifications. Here is what I show now and not sure how to fix them. Most of them are on either Android or Apple phones. I still show 1 on Office, not sure what Microsoft+BITS/7.5 is??

- Vivek JainFeb 21, 2019Iron Contributor
The differences in reports on different days might be due to the fact that if a user does not work on a particular day (hence doesn't connect to Office 365) then for that day's report the user will not show up, even though the user is still not compliant.
Then how do we know for sure everyone is compliant, I do not have much clue. Microsoft should have keep listing all users it detected earlier until it detects a compliant connection from the same user.