Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Encryption Security Windows IT

NTLM 100% Broken Using Hashes Derived From Captures 155

New submitter uCallHimDrJ0NES writes "Security researcher Mark Gamache has used Moxie Marlinspike's Cloudcracker to derive hashes from captured NTLM handshakes, resulting in successful pass-the-hash attacks. It's been going on for a long time, probably, but this is the first time a 'white hat' has researched and exposed the how-to details for us all to enjoy. 'You might think that with all the papers and presentations, no one would be using NTLM...or, God forbid, LM. NTLMv2 has been around for quite some time. Surely, everyone is using it. Right? Wrong! According to the last data from the W3 Schools, 21% of computers are running XP, while NetMarketShare claims it is 39%. Unless someone has hardened these machines (no MS patches do this), these machines are sending LM and NTLM responses!' Microsoft has posted a little guidance for those who need to turn off NTLM. Have fun explaining your new security project to your management, server admins!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NTLM 100% Broken Using Hashes Derived From Captures

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 08, 2013 @09:24PM (#42526775)

    This is one of the worst summaries I have ever read here. I can easily imagine the joy in the submitter as they are dancing to their own over the top writing style. NTLM is 100% broken. Oh no! Microsoft stopped recommending it and switched to Kerberos starting with Windows 2000. Who the hell cares that someone broke a protocol from 10+ years ago? If anything, it makes NTLM look really good. What sensationalist trash this is.

  • by Cassini2 ( 956052 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2013 @09:44PM (#42526957)

    The crucial detail is whether the physical layer of the network can be trusted. If the physical layer is trusted, then NTLM works fine. Historically, lots of corporate networks controlled every computer on the office network, and air-gapped the internet.

    Many modern networks, including wireless networks, have a non-trust worthy physical layer. In this case, only end-to-end encryption protects the network. Yes, the newer versions NTLM protect against the most obvious password scanning attacks. However, with a non-trust worthy physical layer, it is possible to simply scan all the network traffic and get the file contents from the network directly. Also, some (almost all?) ODBC and database servers send passwords in the clear. This makes it straightforward to do simple network traffic analysis attacks, and directly gather valuable information from the company network.

    The bottom line is that only protocols like SSH work against a non-trustworthy physical layer.

  • Re:Thanks alot.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hairyfeet ( 841228 ) <bassbeast1968 AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday January 08, 2013 @11:11PM (#42527585) Journal
    Somebody needs to get with the last decade since MSFT made Kerberos [] the preferred authentication method waaaaay back in Win2K, so if you are still using NTLM for authentication after it has been depreciated for 13 years? I'd say you have bigger problems than NTLM being hacked.
  • by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2013 @11:44PM (#42527829) Journal

    It is time to get with the times.

    Yes, I worked in corporate I.T. before and know all the tired arguments. The OS will turn 13 years old later this year. 13 years?!

    Not to mention XP SP 3 after 800 or so updates is slower and not the speed daemon it once was as 9 out of 10 CPU cycles are work around exploits. Stop defining yourselves and your ego on an OS made by the same people who wrote IE 6?

    The idea for security in XP is from the last century where all you needed is a good password. It lacks things a modern internet enabled OS have today. It is not a trendmill at this point nor is MS being evil to the mean old beancounters who refuse to see hidden costs and just licensing on a spreadsheet in excel. This story, the one on IE 6-8 being vulnerably last week on slashdot, and many others stating XP is so primptive because it doesn't have protected mode, ASLR, are DEP fully (only a few things have that on XP).

    If you ask this because your IT department has no plans to upgrade then another job who treat your profession and seriousness with respect.. They are incompetent and when shit hits the fan and social security numbers are stolen you will get the blame as the cost center and be let go anyway.

    It is obvious with the latest security issues in IE6, IE 7-8 (in non protected mode), XP, and now this that it is time to let it go instead of workaround it. Investing time and money into it is like investing cash into a car with 200,000 miles.

    These costs are real and so are the liabilities. Grow a pair and sell yourself the cheap asshats at your company? You are not saving anything by keeping an outdated insecure infrastructure and it is not unreasonable to upgrade to a 3 year old OS.

  • Re:Thanks alot.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2013 @11:52PM (#42527877) Journal

    I already replied to someone saying the best way to harden XP is called Windows 7.

    I do not understand the strange obsession of keeping XP. Does it save money. No.

    Geeks with aspergers lack the social skills to grow a pair and tell the cost accountants they are morons as if these companies who handle customer social security numbers, credit numbers, and other things with their billing department are ripe pickings with XP.

    XP has been proven time and time again to be old, insecure, and has security features from a different era. It comes with IE 6. I mean did MS really make it that secure? Oh it is password protected. THat is good enough ... check.

    IE 6 - 8 are being exploited right now under XP because it lacks protected mode and even the Mr. Fixit from that exploit has already been circumvented. But those on XP claim they are saving money and how great and secure their OS is that wont listen. Just because it runs on machines with 256 megs of ram doesn't mean it is supperiorly coded and of high quality. THe misinformation many supposedly IT professionals are astounding.

    I should start bookmarking these so when someone mods me down and says how great XP is and why change to an inferior bloated OS like win 7 I can cite this and the IE 6 -8 hole links?

  • by BradleyUffner ( 103496 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @02:04AM (#42528715) Homepage

    So why do home users use Windows?

    Because they don't want to deal with stuff like this just to get sound working. []

Adding features does not necessarily increase functionality -- it just makes the manuals thicker.