[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


More information about the jcifs mailing list