Test script for Win XP x86
Posted 21 August 2012 - 12:13 PM
Should be okay now...
We need a few more brave soles to test as currently not doing anymore work on it, have moved onto getting another release ready in the same layout.
Please report as usual, will correct or amend script as needed and reupload to my box
Posted 22 August 2012 - 04:10 AM
Edited by DesertJerry, 22 August 2012 - 04:22 AM.
Posted 22 August 2012 - 07:06 AM
Newer files and script uploaded to usual location..
Edited by Whatacrock, 22 August 2012 - 07:10 AM.
Posted 22 August 2012 - 08:47 PM
Only difference between this and earlier postings was the new Microsoft Security Tweaks sub-folder: blue = Shared Doc; black = LMHash. I read the Item description and will have to admit I haven't a clue as to what it means: "Disable weak LMHash password creation...." Was this an option somewhere else?
OK - I ran AutoPatcher from my non-test folder and found the same LMHash item under Registry Tweaks - Security > item black there also - for the same reason - I have no idea as to its meaning.
Question: why is the term "Warn Status" attached to me?
Edited by DesertJerry, 22 August 2012 - 08:48 PM.
Posted 22 August 2012 - 09:20 PM
NT_Hash is a greatly improved way of storing passwords. I won't go into details but, an LM_Hash can be broken quite a bit faster then NT_Hash not to mention the way LM_Hash is stored, the password can be extracted with the proper tools.
I really cant stress how much I feel that people should be aware of this and use it. Not to mention... using special characters in your password. Not just !, $,or ? Im talking like
§,╚, Ä, █ Stuff like that... They REALLY REALLY make it harder to brute crack your passwords. Any password length over 9 is also much hard to break.
Edited by ViroMan, 22 August 2012 - 09:25 PM.
Posted 23 August 2012 - 10:03 PM
Posted 24 August 2012 - 03:13 AM
Here is a table for an example that I plucked from the web.
Algorithm Size of password space Halflife length in seconds LANMAN 7.556E12 1.459E6 (~8 days) NTLM 6.704E15 3.045E9 (~95 years) crypt() 6.704E15 5.888E9 (~185 years) *FreeBSD MD5 6.704E15 7.491E11 (>11,000 years)
Posted 24 August 2012 - 08:34 PM
As I mentioned, the only option I had was to disable LMHash in XP Pro - no comment or listing for NT_Hash. If it's an NT item, as mentioned, then how would any user even know about it or how it functions?
So, given that info and not having a reason to know if I have NT_Hash or not why would I disable LMHash?
Posted 24 August 2012 - 09:00 PM
in case you want too... im at
Edited by ViroMan, 24 August 2012 - 09:01 PM.
Posted 24 August 2012 - 09:41 PM
Yahoo chat not anything I care to join or add to my places to go - I have no objections to e-mail or posting here with links to more extensive information if it you think it would add anything to your answer. (Also - where are you in California? and, again, why do I have a warn status bar?)
Posted 24 August 2012 - 09:45 PM
Is it safe to assume the XP x86 and x64 batch files we've been testing are finished and there is no longer any reason for me to maintain two copies of AutoPatcher for testing purposes?
Posted 24 August 2012 - 09:46 PM
As for the warn status bar... everyone except moderators an up get that.
Your probably right about putting that info into the apm. Will ask what a crock to do that.
Yes there should be no further need of an extra copy of x64. I believe that to be a high quality script now.
Edited by ViroMan, 24 August 2012 - 09:48 PM.
Posted 25 August 2012 - 03:08 AM
Files and script uploaded.
Posted 25 August 2012 - 04:18 AM
Posted 25 August 2012 - 04:20 AM
Files and script uploaded.
Posted 25 August 2012 - 04:26 AM
Title=Disable LMHash for Passwords
Description=If LM_hash is disabled windows will default to NT hash. You don't have to do anything different after disabling LM hash except feel safer.For further information refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTLM
There are no other changes at this time
Edited by Whatacrock, 25 August 2012 - 04:28 AM.
Posted 29 August 2012 - 12:33 AM
The only items that I could see that may possibly be added are in the addons script but can be left as is for the time being.
Your thoughts people.
Posted 29 August 2012 - 04:34 AM
Edited by DesertJerry, 29 August 2012 - 04:34 AM.
Posted 29 August 2012 - 04:59 AM
Only a suggestion on my part but would leave these in their current location until otherwise advised
Posted 30 August 2012 - 03:01 AM
Change Log -KB909520; -KB892313; -KB902344; -JournalViewer
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users