[jcifs] jCIFS Updates, redux

Christopher R. Hertel crh at ubiqx.mn.org
Thu Jul 10 04:29:02 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.  :)

Chris -)-----

"Implementing CIFS - the Common Internet FileSystem" ISBN: 013047116X
Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/     -)-----   Christopher R. Hertel
jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/   -)-----   ubiqx development, uninq.
ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/     -)-----   crh at ubiqx.mn.org
OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/    -)-----   crh at ubiqx.org

More information about the jcifs mailing list