Is there a reason this was declined? We have the same request and this seems to be rather simple to implement (allow customer to define the attribute field used in AD and then point to that field for this information). With PCI DSS 3.2 out requiring 2FA for administrative access, this is important to us and we absolutely do NOT want to use the Description field, and it makes no sense why that field would have been chosen for this purpose. We may need to stop using ScreenConnect and drop our maintenance if this is not addressed soon to allow us to meet the requirements of PCI DSS 3.2.
Is there a reason this was declined? We have the same request and this seems to be rather simple to implement (allow customer to define the attribute field used in AD and then point to that field for this information). With PCI DSS 3.2 out requiring 2FA for administrative access, this is important to us and we absolutely do NOT want to use the Description field, and it makes no sense why that field would have been chosen for this purpose. We may need to stop using ScreenConnect and drop our maintenance if this is not addressed soon to allow us to meet the requirements of PCI DSS 3.2.