[jcifs] jCIFS Updates, redux
eglass1 at comcast.net
eglass1 at comcast.net
Thu Jul 10 06:50:30 EST 2003
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 12:23:45PM +0000, eglass1 at comcast.net wrote:
> :
> > However, in the end it doesn't really matter; from a cryptographic standpoint,
> > the LMv2 response is as strong as the NTLMv2 response. The LMv2 response is
> > accepted by all servers which understand NTLMv2. There just isn't much point
> > in going to the extra effort to implement NTLMv2.
>
> It seems, based on some work being done by the Samba Team, that NTLMv2
> becomes important when doing MAC signing. This is an area of active
> research, and the results are not in yet, but it should keep us on our
> toes. :)
>
Yes, I didn't mean to imply it wasn't important; just that at this stage (where
we are just using this for authentication rather than signing/sealing, etc.)
the cost/benefit of implementation doesn't give us much. This will probably
change if/when we start doing DCE/RPC and have a need to implement session
security.
Eric
More information about the jcifs
mailing list