Open Sesame (Dlink - CVE-2012-4046)

A couple weeks ago a vulnerability was posted for the dlink DCS-9xx series of cameras. The author of the disclosure found that the setup application that comes with the camera is able to send a specifically crafted request to a camera on the same network and receive its password in plaintext. I figured this was a good chance to do some analysis and figure out exactly how the application carried out this functionality and possibly create a script to pull the password out of a camera.

The basic functionality of the application is as follows:

• Application sends out a UDP broadcast on port 5978
• Camera sees the broadcast on port 5978 and inspects the payload – if it sees that the initial part of the payload contains "FF FF FF FF FF FF" it responds (UDP broadcast port 5978) with an encoded payload with its own MAC address
• Application retrieves the camera's response and creates another UDP broadcast but this time it sets the payload to contain the target camera's MAC address, this encoded value contains the command to send over the password
• Camera sees the broadcast on port 5978 and checks that it is meant for it by inspecting the MAC address that has been specified in the payload, it responds with an encoded payload that contains its password (base64 encoded)

After spending some time with the application in a debugger I found what looked like it was responsible for the decoding of the encoded values that are passed:

super exciting screen shot.

After spending some time documenting the functionality I came up with the following notes (messy wall of text):

	Command	Comments
	.JGE SHORT 0A729D36	; stage1
	./MOV EDX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.2]	; set EDX to our 1st stage half decoded buffer
	.|MOV ECX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.4]	; set ECX to our current count/offset
	.|MOV EAX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.3]	; set EAX to our base64 encoded payload
	.|MOVSX EAX,BYTE PTR DS:[EAX]	; set EAX to the current value in our base64 payload
	.|MOV AL,BYTE PTR DS:[EAX+0A841934]	; set EAX/AL to a hardcoded offset of its value table is at 0a841934
	.|MOV BYTE PTR DS:[ECX+EDX],AL	; ECX = Offset, EDX = start of our half-decoded buffer, write our current byte there
	.|INC DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.4]	; increment our offset/count
	.|INC DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.3]	; increment our base64 buffer to next value
	.|MOV EDX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.4]	; set EDX to our counter
	.|CMP EDX,DWORD PTR SS:[ARG.2]	; compare EDX (counter) to our total size
	.\JL SHORT 0A729D13	; jump back if we have not finished half decoding our input value
	.MOV ECX,DWORD PTR SS:[ARG.3]	; Looks like this will point at our decoded buffer
	.MOV DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.5],ECX	; set Arg5 to our decoded destination
	.MOV EAX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.2]	; set EAX to our half-decoded buffer
	.MOV DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.3],EAX	; set arg3 to point at our half-decoded buffer
	.MOV EDX,DWORD PTR SS:[ARG.4]	; ???? 1500 decimal
	.XOR ECX,ECX	; clear ECX
	.MOV DWORD PTR DS:[EDX],ECX	; clear out arg4 value
	.XOR EAX,EAX	; clear out EAX
	.MOV DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.6],EAX	; clear out local.6
	.JMP SHORT 0A729DAE	; JUMP
	./MOV EDX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.3]	; move our current half-decoded dword position into EDX
	.|MOV CL,BYTE PTR DS:[EDX]	; move our current byte into ECX (CL) (dword[0])
	.|SHL ECX,2	; shift left 2 dword[0]
	.|MOV EAX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.3]	; move our current dword position into EAX
	.|MOVSX EDX,BYTE PTR DS:[EAX+1]	; move our current dword position + 1 (dword[1]) into EDX
	.|SAR EDX,4	; shift right 4 dword[1]
	.|ADD CL,DL	; add (shift left 2 dword[0]) + (shift right 4 dword[1])
	.|MOV EAX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.5]	; set EAX to our current decoded buffer position
	.|MOV BYTE PTR DS:[EAX],CL	; write our decoded (dword[0]) value to or decoded buffer
	.|INC DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.5]	; increment our position in the decoded buffer
	.|MOV EDX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.3]	; set EDX to our current dword position
	.|MOV CL,BYTE PTR DS:[EDX+1]	; set ECX to dword[1]
	.|SHL ECX,4	; left shift 4 dword[1]
	.|MOV EAX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.3]	; set EAX to our current dword position
	.|MOVSX EDX,BYTE PTR DS:[EAX+2]	; set EDX to dword[2]
	.|SAR EDX,2	; shift right 2 dword[2]
	.|ADD CL,DL	; add (left shift 4 dword[1]) + (right shift 2 dword[2])
	.|MOV EAX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.5]	; set EAX to our next spot in the decoded buffer
	.|MOV BYTE PTR DS:[EAX],CL	; write our decoded value into our decoded buffer
	.|INC DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.5]	; move to the next spot in our decoded buffer
	.|MOV EDX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.3]	; set EDX to our current half-decoded dword
	.|MOV CL,BYTE PTR DS:[EDX+2]	; set ECX dword[2]
	.|SHL ECX,6	; shift left 6 dword[2]
	.|MOV EAX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.3]	; set EAX to our current half-decoded dword
	.|ADD CL,BYTE PTR DS:[EAX+3]	; add dword[2] + dword[3]
	.|MOV EDX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.5]	; set EDX to point at our next spot in our decoded buffer
	.|MOV BYTE PTR DS:[EDX],CL	; write our decoded byte to our decoded buffer
	.|INC DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.5]	; move to the next spot in our decoded buffer
	.|ADD DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.3],4	; increment our encoded buffer to point at our next dword
	.|MOV ECX,DWORD PTR SS:[ARG.4]	; set ECX to our current offset?
	.|ADD DWORD PTR DS:[ECX],3	; add 3 to our current offset?
	.|ADD DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.6],4	; add 4 to our byte counter??
	.|MOV EAX,DWORD PTR SS:[ARG.2]	; move total size into EAX
	.|ADD EAX,-4	; subtract 4 from total size
	.|CMP EAX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.6]	; compare our total bytes to read bytes
	.\JG SHORT 0A729D50	; jump back if we are not done
	.MOV EDX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.3]	; set EDX to our last DWORD of encoded buffer
	.MOVSX ECX,BYTE PTR DS:[EDX+3]	; set ECX to dword[3] last byte of our half-decoded dword (dword + 3)
	.INC ECX	; increment the value of dword[3]
	.JE SHORT 0A729E1E
	.MOV EAX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.3]	; set EAX to our current half-decoded dword
	.MOV DL,BYTE PTR DS:[EAX]	; set EDX (DL) to dword[0]
	.SHL EDX,2	; shift left 2 dword[0]
	.MOV ECX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.3]	; set ECX to our current encoded dword position
	.MOVSX EAX,BYTE PTR DS:[ECX+1]	; set EAX to dword[1]
	.SAR EAX,4	; shift right 4 dword[1]
	.ADD DL,AL	; add (shifted left 2 dword[0]) + (shifted right 4 dword[1])
	.MOV ECX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.5]	; set ECX to point at our next spot in our decoded buffer
	.MOV BYTE PTR DS:[ECX],DL	; write our decoded value (EDX/DL) to our decoded buffer
	.INC DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.5]	; move to the next spot in our decoded buffer
	.MOV EDX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.3]	; set EDX to point at our dword
	.MOV AL,BYTE PTR DS:[EDX+1]	; set EAX/AL to dword[1]
	.SHL EAX,4	; shift left 4 dword[1]
	.MOV EDX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.3]	; set EDX to our current dword
	.MOVSX ECX,BYTE PTR DS:[EDX+2]	; set ECX to dword[2]
	.SAR ECX,2	; shift right 2 dword[2]
	.ADD AL,CL	; add (shifted left 4 dword[1]) + (shifted right 2 dword[2])
	.MOV EDX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.5]	; set EDX to point at our current spot in our decoded buffer
	.MOV BYTE PTR DS:[EDX],AL	; write our decoded value to the decoded buffer
	.INC DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.5]	; move to the next spot in our decoded buffer
	.MOV EAX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.3]	; set EAX to point at our current dword
	.MOV CL,BYTE PTR DS:[EAX+2]	; set ECX/CL to dword[2]
	.SHL ECX,6	; shift left 6 dword[2]
	.MOV EAX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.3]	; point EAX at our current dword
	.ADD CL,BYTE PTR DS:[EAX+3]	; add dword[3] + (shifted left 6 dword[2])
	.MOV EDX,DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.5]	; point EDX at our current decoded buffer
	.MOV BYTE PTR DS:[EDX],CL	; write our decoded value to the decoded buffer
	.INC DWORD PTR SS:[LOCAL.5]	; increment our deocded buffer
	.MOV ECX,DWORD PTR SS:[ARG.4]	; set ECX to our current offset?
	.ADD DWORD PTR DS:[ECX],3	; add 4 for our current byte counter?
	.JMP 0A729EA6	; jump

Translated into english: the application first uses a lookup table to translate every byte in the input string, to do this it uses the value of the current byte as an offset into the table.  After it is done with "stage1" it traverses the translated input buffer a dword at a time and does some bit shifting and addition to fully decode the value. The following roughly shows the "stage2" routine:

(Dword[0] << 2) + (Dword[1] >> 4) = unencoded byte 1 

(Dword[1] << 4) + (Dword[2] >> 2) = unencoded byte 2 

(Dword[2] << 6) + Dword[3] = unencoded byte 3

I then confirmed that this routine worked on an "encoded" value that went over the wire from the application to the camera. After confirming the encoding scheme worked, I recreated the network transaction the application does with the camera to create a stand alone script that will retrieve the password from a camera that is on the same lan as the "attacker". The script can be found here, thanks to Jason Doyle for the original finding (@jasond0yle ).

More info

1. Pentest Tools For Windows
2. Pentest Services
3. Is Hacking Illegal
4. Pentest Training
5. Hacking Site
6. Pentest Iso
7. Pentest Dns Server
8. Pentest Companies
9. Hacker Types
10. Hacker Computer
11. Hacking Games
12. Pentest With Metasploit

Evilginx2 - Install And Configure In Localhost Complete

Related posts

1. Pentest Vs Red Team
2. Pentest With Metasploit
3. Pentesting
4. Hacking Network
5. Hacking Simulator
6. Hacking Games Online
7. Pentest Nmap
8. Pentest Companies
9. Hacker Forum
10. Hacker Keyboard

PDFex: Major Security Flaws In PDF Encryption

After investigating the security of PDF signatures, we had a deeper look at PDF encryption. In co­ope­ra­ti­on with our friends from Müns­ter Uni­ver­si­ty of Ap­p­lied Sci­en­ces, we discovered severe weaknesses in the PDF encryption standard which lead to full plaintext exfiltration in an active-attacker scenario.

To guarantee confidentiality, PDF files can be encrypted. This enables the secure transfer and storing of sensitive documents without any further protection mechanisms.

The key management between the sender and recipient may be password based (the recipient must know the password used by the sender, or it must be transferred to them through a secure channel) or public key based (i.e., the sender knows the X.509 certificate of the recipient).

In this research, we analyze the security of encrypted PDF files and show how an attacker can exfiltrate the content without having the corresponding keys.

So what is the problem?

The security problems known as PDFex discovered by our research can be summarized as follows:

1. Even without knowing the corresponding password, the attacker possessing an encrypted PDF file can manipulate parts of it.
   More precisely, the PDF specification allows the mixing of ciphertexts with plaintexts. In combination with further PDF features which allow the loading of external resources via HTTP, the attacker can run direct exfiltration attacks once a victim opens the file.
2. PDF encryption uses the Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) encryption mode with no integrity checks, which implies ciphertext malleability.
   This allows us to create self-exfiltrating ciphertext parts using CBC malleability gadgets. We use this technique not only to modify existing plaintext but to construct entirely new encrypted objects.

Who uses PDF Encryption?

PDF encryption is widely used. Prominent companies like Canon and Samsung apply PDF encryption in document scanners to protect sensitive information.

Further providers like IBM offer PDF encryption services for PDF documents and other data (e.g., confidential images) by wrapping them into PDF. PDF encryption is also supported in different medical products to transfer health records, for example Innoport, Ricoh, Rimage.

Due to the shortcomings regarding the deployment and usability of S/MIME and OpenPGP email encryption, some organizations use special gateways to automatically encrypt email messages as encrypted PDF attachments, for example CipherMail, Encryptomatic, NoSpamProxy. The password to decrypt these PDFs can be transmitted over a second channel, such as a text message (i.e., SMS).

Technical details of the attacks

We developed two different attack classes on PDF Encryption: Direct Exfiltration and CBC Gadgets.

Attack 1: Direct Exfiltration (Attack A)

The idea of this attack is to abuse the partial encryption feature by modifying an encrypted PDF file. As soon as the file is opened and decrypted by the victim sensitive content is sent to the attacker. Encrpyted PDF files does not have integrity protection. Thus, an attacker can modify the structure of encrypted PDF documents, add unencrypted objects, or wrap encrypted parts into a context controlled the attacker.

In the given example, the attacker abuses the flexibility of the PDF encryption standard to define certain objects as unencrypted. The attacker modifies the Encrypt dictionary (6 0 obj) in a way that the document is partially encrypted – all streams are left AES256 encrypted while strings are defined as unencrypted by setting the Identity filter. Thus, the attacker can freely modify strings in the document and add additional objects containing unencrypted strings.

The content to be exfiltrated is left encrypted, see Contents (4 0 obj) and EmbeddedFile (5 0 obj). The most relevant object for the attack is the definition of an Action, which can submit a form, invoke a URL, or execute JavaScript. The Action references the encrypted parts as content to be included in requests and can thereby be used to exfiltrate their plaintext to an arbitrary URL. The execution of the Action can be triggered automatically once the PDF file is opened (after the decryption) or via user interaction, for example, by clicking within the document.

This attack has three requirements to be successful. While all requirements are PDF standard compliant, they have not necessarily been implemented by every PDF application:

• Partial encryption: Partially encrypted documents based on Crypt Filters like the Identity filter or based on other less supported methods like the None encryption algorithm.
• Cross-object references: It must be possible to reference and access encrypted string or stream objects from unencrypted attacker-controlled parts of the PDF document.
• Exfiltration channel: One of the interactive features allowing the PDF reader to communicate via Internet must exist, with or without user interaction. Such Features are PDF Forms, Hyperlinks, or JavaScript.

Please note that the attack does not abuse any cryptographic issues, so that there are no requirements to the underlying encryption algorithm (e.g., AES) or the encryption mode (e.g., CBC).

In the following, we show three techniques how an attack can exfiltrate the content.

Exfiltration via PDF Forms (A1)

The PDF standard allows a document's encrypted streams or strings to be defined as values of a PDF form to be submitted to an external server. This can be done by referencing their object numbers as the values of the form fields within the Catalog object, as shown in the example on the left side. The value of the PDF form points to the encrypted data stored in 2 0 obj.

To make the form auto-submit itself once the document is opened and decrypted, an OpenAction can be applied. Note that the object which contains the URL (http://p.df) for form submission is not encrypted and completely controlled by the attacker. As a result, as soon as the victim opens the PDF file and decrypts it, the OpenAction will be executed by sending the decrypted content of 2 0 obj to (http://p.df).

Exfiltration via Hyperlinks (A2)

If forms are not supported by the PDF viewer, there is a second method to achieve direct exfiltration of a plaintext. The PDF standard allows setting a "base" URI in the Catalog object used to resolve all relative URIs in the document.

This enables an attacker to define the encrypted part as a relative URI to be leaked to the attacker's web server. Therefore the base URI will be prepended to each URI called within the PDF file. In the given example, we set the base URI to (http://p.df).

The plaintext can be leaked by clicking on a visible element such as a link, or without user interaction by defining a URI Action to be automatically performed once the document is opened.

In the given example, we define the base URI within an Object Stream, which allows objects of arbitrary type to be embedded within a stream. This construct is a standard compliant method to put unencrypted and encrypted strings within the same document. Note that for this attack variant, only strings can be exfiltrated due to the specification, but not streams; (relative) URIs must be of type string. However, fortunately (from an attacker's point of view), all encrypted streams in a PDF document can be re-written and defined as hex-encoded strings using the hexadecimal string notation.

Nevertheless, the attack has some notable drawbacks compared to  Exfiltration via PDF Forms:

• The attack is not silent. While forms are usually submitted in the background (by the PDF viewer itself), to open hyperlinks, most applications launch an external web browser.
• Compared to HTTP POST, the length of HTTP GET requests, as invoked by hyperlinks, is limited to a certain size.
• PDF viewers do not necessarily URL-encode binary strings, making it difficult to leak compressed data.

Exfiltration via JavaScript (A3)

The PDF JavaScript reference allows JavaScript code within a PDF document to directly access arbitrary string/stream objects within the document and leak them with functions such as *getDataObjectContents* or *getAnnots*.

In the given example, the stream object 7 is given a Name (x), which is used to reference and leak it with a JavaScript action that is automatically triggered once the document is opened. The attack has some advantages compared to Exfiltration via PDF Forms and Exfiltration via Hyperlinks, such as the flexibility of an actual programming language.

It must, however, be noted that – while JavaScript actions are part of the PDF specification – various PDF applications have limited JavaScript support or disable it by default (e.g., Perfect PDF Reader).

Attack 2: CBC Gadgets (Attack B)

Not all PDF viewers support partially encrypted documents, which makes them immune to direct exfiltration attacks. However, because PDF encryption generally defines no authenticated encryption, attackers may use CBC gadgets to exfiltrate plaintext. The basic idea is to modify the plaintext data directly within an encrypted object, for example, by prefixing it with an URL. The CBC gadget attack, thus does not necessarily require cross-object references.

Note that all gadget-based attacks modify existing encrypted content or create new content from CBC gadgets. This is possible due to the malleability property of the CBC encryption mode.

This attack has two necessary preconditions:

• Known plaintext: To manipulate an encrypted object using CBC gadgets, a known plaintext segment is necessary. For AESV3 – the most recent encryption algorithm – this plain- text is always given by the Perms entry. For older versions, known plaintext from the object to be exfiltrated is necessary.
• Exfiltration channel: One of the interactive features: PDF Forms or Hyperlinks.

These requirements differ from those of the direct exfiltration attacks, because the attacks are applied "through" the encryption layer and not outside of it.

Exfiltration via PDF Forms (B1)

As described above, PDF allows the submission of string and stream objects to a web server. This can be used in conjunction with CBC gadgets to leak the plaintext to an attacker-controlled server, even if partial encryption is not allowed.

A CBC gadget constructed from the known plaintext can be used as the submission URL, as shown in the example on the left side. The construction of this particular URL gadget is challenging. As PDF encryption uses PKCS#5 padding, constructing the URL using a single gadget from the known Perms plaintext is difficult, as the last 4 bytes that would need to contain the padding are unknown.

However, we identified two techniques to solve this. On the one hand, we can take the last block of an unknown ciphertext and append it to our constructed URL, essentially reusing the correct PKCS#5 padding of the unknown plaintext. Unfortunately, this would introduce 20 bytes of random data from the gadgeting process and up to 15 bytes of the unknown plaintext to the end of our URL.

On the other hand, the PDF standard allows the execution of multiple OpenActions in a document, allowing us to essentially guess the last padding byte of the Perms value. This is possible by iterating over all 256 possible values of the last plaintext byte to get 0x01, resulting in a URL with as little random as possible (3 bytes). As a limitation, if one of the 3 random bytes contains special characters, the form submission URL might break.

Exfiltration via Hyperlinks (B2)

Using CBC gadgets, encrypted plaintext can be prefixed with one or more chosen plaintext blocks. An attacker can construct URLs in the encrypted PDF document that contain the plaintext to exfiltrate. This attack is similar to the exfiltration hyperlink attack (A2). However, it does not require the setting of a "base" URI in plaintext to achieve exfiltration.

The same limitations described for direct exfiltration based on links (A2) apply. Additionally, the constructed URL contains random bytes from the gadgeting process, which may prevent the exfiltration in some cases.

Exfiltration via Half-Open Object Streams (B3)

While CBC gadgets are generally restricted to the block size of the underlying block cipher – and more specifically the length of the known plaintext, in this case, 12 bytes – longer chosen plaintexts can be constructed using compression. Deflate compression, which is available as a filter for PDF streams, allows writing both uncompressed and compressed segments into the same stream. The compressed segments can reference back to the uncompressed segments and achieve the repetition of byte strings from these segments. These backreferences allow us to construct longer continuous plaintext blocks than CBC gadgets would typically allow for. Naturally, the first uncompressed occurrence of a byte string still appears in the decompressed result. Additionally, if the compressed stream is constructed using gadgets, each gadget generates 20 random bytes that appear in the decompressed stream. A non-trivial obstacle is to keep the PDF viewer from interpreting these fragments in the decompressed stream. While hiding the fragments in comments is possible, PDF comments are single-line and are thus susceptible to newline characters in the random bytes. Therefore, in reality, the length of constructed compressed plaintexts is limited.

To deal with this caveat, an attacker can use ObjectStreams which allow the storage of arbitrary objects inside a stream. The attacker uses an object stream to define new objects using CBC gadgets. An object stream always starts with a header of space-separated integers which define the object number and the byte offset of the object inside the stream. The dictionary of an object stream contains the key First which defines the byte offset of the first object inside the stream. An attacker can use this value to create a comment of arbitrary size by setting it to the first byte after their comment.

Using compression has the additional advantage that compressed, encrypted plaintexts from the original document can be embedded into the modified object. As PDF applications often create compressed streams, these can be incorporated into the attacker-created compressed object and will therefore be decompressed by the PDF applications. This is a significant advantage over leaking the compressed plaintexts without decompression as the compressed bytes are often not URL-encoded correctly (or at all) by the PDF applications, leading to incomplete or incomprehensible plaintexts. However, due to the inner workings of the deflate algorithms, a complete compressed plaintext can only be prefixed with new segments, but not postfixed. Therefore, a string created using this technique cannot be terminated using a closing bracket, leading to a half-open string. This is not a standard compliant construction, and PDF viewers should not accept it. However, a majority of PDF viewers accept it anyway.

Evaluation

During our security analysis, we identified two standard compliant attack classes which break the confidentiality of encrypted PDF files. Our evaluation shows that among 27 widely-used PDF viewers, all of them are vulnerable to at least one of those attacks, including popular software such as Adobe Acrobat, Foxit Reader, Evince, Okular, Chrome, and Firefox.

You can find the detailed results of our evaluation here.

What is the root cause of the problem?

First, many data formats allow to encrypt only parts of the content (e.g., XML, S/MIME, PDF). This encryption flexibility is difficult to handle and allows an attacker to include their own content, which can lead to exfiltration channels.

Second, when it comes to encryption, AES-CBC – or encryption without integrity protection in general – is still widely supported. Even the latest PDF 2.0 specification released in 2017 still relies on it. This must be fixed in future PDF specifications and any other format encryption standard, without enabling backward compatibility that would re-enable CBC gadgets.

A positive example is JSON Web Encryption standard, which learned from the CBC attacks on XML and does not support any encryption algorithm without integrity protection.

Authors of this Post

Jens Müller
Fabian Ising
Vladislav Mladenov
Christian Mainka
Sebastian Schinzel
Jörg Schwenk

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the CERT-Bund team for the great support during the responsible disclosure process.Related word

1. Pentest Report Generator
2. Pentest With Metasploit
3. Hacking The System
4. Pentest Training
5. Pentest With Metasploit
6. Pentest Tools For Windows
7. Pentest Website
8. Pentest Azure
9. Hacking Simulator
10. Pentest Wiki
11. Hacking Google
12. Pentest Standard
13. Pentest Training
14. Pentest Stages
15. Hacker Typer
16. Pentest Reporting Tool
17. Pentesting Tools
18. Hacker Kevin Mitnick
19. Pentest Ios
20. Rapid7 Pentest

Ophcrack

" Ophcrack is an open source (GPL license) program that cracks Windows LM hashes using rainbow tables. The program includes the ability to import the hashes from a variety of formats, including dumping directly from the SAM files of Windows. There is also a Live CD version which automates the retrieval, decryption, and cracking of passwords from a Windows system. Rainbow tables for LM hashes of alphanumeric passwords are provided for free by the developers. These tables can crack 99.9% of alphanumeric passwords of up to 14 characters in usually a few seconds, and at most a few minutes. Larger rainbow tables (for LM hashes of passwords with all printable characters, including symbols and space) are available for purchase from Objectif Securité. Starting with version 2.3, Ophcrack also cracks NT hashes. This is necessary if generation of the LM hash is disabled (this is default on Windows Vista), or if the password is longer than 14 characters (in which case the LM hash is not stored)." read more...

Website: http://ophcrack.sourceforge.net

Related news

1. Hacking Groups
2. Hackerrank Sql
3. Hacking Growth
4. Hacking Books
5. Pentest Meaning
6. Hackerrank Sql
7. Hacking Software