john-users - Re: NTLM challenge/response cracking (again...)

Openwall wordlists collection for password cracking (20+ languages)
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:46:23 -0500
From: Philippe Ouellet <pplouellet@...il.com>
To: "john-users@...ts.openwall.com" <john-users@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: NTLM challenge/response cracking (again...)

I've had issues with captured challenge response hashes. Here is some additional info that helped me with formatting. http://www.foofus.net/?page_id=63

On 2011-11-11, at 5:16 PM, rootkit rootkit <rootkit77@...il.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 6:29 PM, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Information on this topic are very difficult to find. At the beginning
>>> I was thinking about generating rainbow tables for each different
>>> CHALLENGE, but that would be really too much.
>> 
>> It would miss the whole point of rainbow tables. In short, if you do not
>> already have the tables, cracking with JtR will be quicker.
> 
> True. At the time I didn't know john could crack it (or better, I
> didn't know I needed the jumbo patch).
> 
>>> However there's something I don't understand: does the NETLM cracking
>>> work only if the challenge is 1122334455667788? Would it work for any
>>> challenge?
>> 
>> JtR works for any challenge. That particular challenge stems from some
>> old public attacks where the challenge was forced to this value, thereby
>> making the salt (challenge) "worthless".
> 
> That was more or less my guess, thanks for confirming.
> 
>> And, because of this, I'm
>> pretty sure there are rainbow tables for that very challenge.
> 
> Yes, I have seen some around.
> 
>> Like Solar said, post some example hashes. It should work if you do it
>> right - at least if you run JtR version 1.7.7-jumbo-5 or newer. Earlier
>> versions had a variety of shortcomings and was also substantially slower
>> for these hashes.
> 
> Done in the other post.
> Thanks for your answer magnum.