On Wed, 2021-08-18 at 22:18 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > I'm not sure you understand how embarrassing it is to still be using > these > algorithms. MD4 has been broken for over 25 years, and better > algorithms have > been recommended for 29 years. Similarly MD5 has been broken for 16 > years and > better algorithms have been recommended for 25 years (though granted, > HMAC-MD5 > is more secure than plain MD5 when properly used). Meanwhile SHA-2 > is 20 years > old and is still considered secure. So this isn't something that > changes every > month -- we're talking about no one bothering to do anything in 30 > years. > > Of course, if cryptography isn't actually applicable to the use case, > then > cryptography shouldn't be used at all. I'm sorry that Samba - or the Kernel, you could implement whatever is desired between cifs.ko and kcifsd - hasn't gone it alone to build a new peer-to-peer mechanism, but absent a Samba-only solution Microsoft has been asked and has no intention of updating NTLM, so embarrassing or otherwise this is how it is. Thankfully only the HMAC-MD5 step in what you mention is cryptographically significant, the rest are just very lossy compression algorithms. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett (he/him) https://samba.org/~abartlet/ Samba Team Member (since 2001) https://samba.org Samba Team Lead, Catalyst IT https://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba Samba Development and Support, Catalyst IT - Expert Open Source Solutions
