I have been doing some research but I still cannot get straight if there is a true requirement for an SPN on a standard user account that is NOT acting as a service account running an SQL service?
I read through his article but I didn't see this specifically answered about a requirement for the SPN to remain: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/psssql/2010/03/09/what-spn-do-i-use-and-how-does-it-get-there/
"Automatic SPN Registration
When an instance of the SQL Server Database Engine starts, SQL Server tries to register the SPN for the SQL Server service. When the instance is stopped, SQL Server tries to unregister the SPN. For a TCP/IP connection the SPN is registered in the format MSSQLSvc/<FQDN>:<tcpport>.Both named instances and the default instance are registered as MSSQLSvc, relying on the <tcpport> value to differentiate the instances.
For other connections that support Kerberos the SPN is registered in the format MSSQLSvc/<FQDN>:<instancename> for a named instance. The format for registering the default instance is MSSQLSvc/<FQDN>.
Manual intervention might be required to register or unregister the SPN if the service account lacks the permissions that are required for these actions."
I know the admin account that had the SPN did not have the permissions to register SPNs on the domain but was involved in the setup and service restarts of the SQL installation or configuration.
The background on this is managing AD and I'm trying to reduce risk around unnecessary SPNs in our environment susceptible to Kerberoasting. I could update these user accounts by flagging them as able to support AES encryption (and having them reset the password 2x) but I was also just as curious if I could remove the SPN entirely and basically move on to other accounts that have true requirements (like SQL service accounts)?