Re: NTLMv2 vs. Kerberos (Sorry about the similarity)
From: Oli Restorick [MVP] (oli_at_mvps.org)
Date: 03/27/04
- Next message: Asif Attari: "file on desktop"
- Previous message: Asif Attari: "Modem Security"
- In reply to: Steven L Umbach: "Re: NTLMv2 vs. Kerberos (Sorry about the similarity)"
- Next in thread: Steven L Umbach: "Re: NTLMv2 vs. Kerberos (Sorry about the similarity)"
- Reply: Steven L Umbach: "Re: NTLMv2 vs. Kerberos (Sorry about the similarity)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 14:40:44 -0000
Steven,
Thanks. Some great info there.
Oli
"Steven L Umbach" <sumbach@N0spam.ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:uoUIYG3EEHA.4080@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You would need use something like LC4 or perhaps a network sniffer like
> Etherreal to capture authentication packets. At the very least you should
> change domain and domain controller policy to "send ntlmv2 responses only"
> and then the only way you would have lm on your network is if you had a
W9X
> computer trying to access resources. Even in default security option
> settings the W2K/XP/w2003 computers will be using no less secure than
ntlm
> on a network such as yours that does not have any W9X clients and
downlevel
> authentication should be used rarely anyhow if only domain accounts are
used
> to access resources. Enable auditing of account logons for you domain
> controllers and I bet you see everything being authenticated via kerberos
> for the W2K/XP/W2003 machines. --- Steve
>
>
> "GX" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:dn%8c.326741$B81.4721890@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > awsome...thanks a lot...
> >
> > you menitoned earlier...
> >
> > > > > You really want to avoid lm as it is very weak [even to hash
> sniffing]
> > and also disable lm hash storage on your domain controllers and even
> domain
> > members if not needed for W9X clients.
> >
> > What would be a good way to determine that this is happening? I would
like
> > to be able to justify the setting change. Is there's any toold I can use
> to
> > test this transmission between workstations or workstation and server?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > GX
> >
> >
>
>
- Next message: Asif Attari: "file on desktop"
- Previous message: Asif Attari: "Modem Security"
- In reply to: Steven L Umbach: "Re: NTLMv2 vs. Kerberos (Sorry about the similarity)"
- Next in thread: Steven L Umbach: "Re: NTLMv2 vs. Kerberos (Sorry about the similarity)"
- Reply: Steven L Umbach: "Re: NTLMv2 vs. Kerberos (Sorry about the similarity)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|