[plug] Samba And Windows

[Christian]

On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 05:12:27PM +0800, Steve Baker wrote:
 
> Probably a password encryption problem.  NT/2000 encrypt the passwords,
> 95/98 do not.  There are some readme's in the samba docs that tell you all
> about it, and how to either turn the encryption off (bad) or get samba to
> work with them (good).

Wasn't this the Microsoft protocol where a hash of the password became
the authentication token itself?  In such a case hashing brings almost
no security whatsoever and you may as well not have "encrypted"
passwords at all.  (This may not be the same protocol or they may have
fixed it but I've got a feeling it is.)  BTW, I also think that 95/98
use some "encryption" scheme too because I remember reading about it
when I set up a Linux box to do file serving to two 95 machines a couple
of years ago.  Perhaps 2000 uses a different system or protocol though.

It's also funny how people (not you in particular, people in general)
like to equate cryptography with security.  "Encryption good,
non-encryption bad."  At the end of the day cryptography *can* bring
security but the security of the overall system has more to do with the
way it's implemented and used rather than the presence or absence of
cryptography.  Sometimes cryptography can make a badly implemented or
used system actually less secure.

Regards,

Christian.