Protocol transition is strictly required when the front-end cannot present a Kerberos-authenticated user identity to Active Directory, but still needs to obtain a Kerberos ticket to a back-end service on that user’s behalf.
Supported real-world cases in the provided material:
- Forms-based or other non-Kerberos front ends accessing Kerberos back ends If clients do not always connect with Kerberos, constrained delegation must be set to Use any authentication protocol. The Windows Server guidance states that Use Kerberos only is appropriate only when clients always use Kerberos; if some clients use other methods such as NTLM or forms-based authentication, Use any authentication protocol is required.
- Microsoft Entra Application Proxy / Private Network Connector for IWA apps For on-premises applications that use Integrated Windows Authentication behind Application Proxy, the private network connector impersonates the user in Active Directory to obtain a Kerberos token for the application. The documented same-domain KCD configuration explicitly uses Trust this computer for delegation to specified services only together with Use any authentication protocol.
- Cross-domain resource-based constrained delegation (RBCD) In cross-domain scenarios, resource-based constrained delegation does not use the older Trusted-to-Authenticate-for-Delegation control in the same way. The KDC always allows protocol transition when performing RBCD as though that bit were set. That makes protocol transition part of the design for these cross-domain delegation patterns.
- Front-end access brokers and reverse proxies Microsoft documents front-end services such as ISA Server, Forefront Threat Management Gateway, Exchange Outlook Web Access, and SharePoint Server as practical applications of constrained delegation to authenticate to servers in other domains. These are established examples of front-end services brokering user access to back-end services, which is the class of scenario where protocol transition is relevant when the incoming auth is not Kerberos end to end.
- Web Enrollment proxy / similar IIS front ends with mixed client authentication The Windows Server troubleshooting guidance for Web Enrollment explicitly says to select Use any authentication protocol if some clients use authentication methods other than Kerberos, such as NTLM or forms-based authentication. This is a concrete example where switching to Kerberos only would break clients that do not arrive with Kerberos.
What can be concluded for an audit:
- Safe candidate for Kerberos only: services where clients are guaranteed to authenticate to the front end with Kerberos every time.
- Do not switch to Kerberos only without testing:
- forms-based front ends
- NTLM-accepting front ends
- Entra Application Proxy / private network connector KCD scenarios
- mixed-auth IIS applications
- cross-domain RBCD designs
Security note: delegation increases impersonation risk, and unconstrained delegation is especially risky. Where delegation is needed, constrained delegation or resource-based constrained delegation is the more secure pattern than unconstrained delegation.
- Kerberos Constrained Delegation for single sign-on (SSO) to your apps with application proxy
- Kerberos Constrained Delegation Overview
- Windows authentication - Kerberos constrained delegation with Microsoft Entra ID
- How to configure Kerberos Constrained Delegation for Web Enrollment proxy pages
- Accounts security posture assessments