On Sat, 2012-01-21 at 07:37 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:03:31 +1100 > Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 14:45 -0600, Steve French wrote: > > > My general thinking on this is as follows: > > > > > > If the kernel is distributed to all the workstations in an organization > > > with this Kconfig option disabled, it makes it harder for individual users > > > to make the mistake of enabling lanman (sec=lanman, or the Kconfig > > > option) on a public network and thus send weak password hashes > > > which could be discovered simply. Most distros make the choice > > > of enabling broader compatibility with old pre-1997 servers but > > > it is a very small set of servers who would require lanman support, > > > and a large number of potential attackers who could benefit if > > > users enable lanman on a public network. I suspect that there > > > are environments where removing code (via Kconfig) is preferred > > > to trusting all owners of all workstations running that organizations > > > standard linux to never enable lanman at runtime. > > > > > > But ... the opinion of security specialists on this would be welcome. > > > > We have been though some of this with the kerberos libs, which now allow > > (default?) to not even compile with weak crypto. If the weak crypto is > > not compiled in, it can therefore be asserted that the weak crypto > > cannot be used, and this makes it easier to comply with security > > audits/certification etc. > > > > I don't want to make your code more complex than it needs to be, but LM > > encryption really, really needs to go away. If it is not a major > > bother, I would like to make it easier for that to happen if possible. > > > > The only way for it to go away completely is for all servers that > support only that encryption to go away completely. Unfortunately, > that's a tall order -- there are still at least some in the field and > people need to get at data on them. Jeff, can you identify them ? LM only servers means pre Win 95 machines, I'd be curious to know what servers are there that really support only LM hashes and not NT hashes. Simo. -- Simo Sorce Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo@xxxxxxxxx> Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
