Gareth,
I create an "enable secret" password on a Cisco router 2610 with the 
password as you mentioned "kittens".  Remember this is an MD5 encrypted 
string ($1$Em47$DEsFfXv/Px6y/cEmjMwfE0).  You know what, I take this string 
and use the program called "john the ripper" running on my linux box to 
crack it.  This linux is a pentium 200MHz with 64MB of RAM.  It takes 
exactly 5 minutes to crack this password.  I would imagine for longer 
"enable secret" password, it takes longer but not as difficult as it sounds.

Regards,



>From: "Gareth Hinton" 
>Reply-To: "Gareth Hinton" 
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: OT: Enable secret hacking [7:23670]
>Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:34:19 -0400
>
>The reason I asked was to see if other peoples impression was the same as
>mine. I've got the tools for the level 7 passwords, but was under the
>impression that the enable secret was almost impossible.
>I do some work for a fairly large company that had some penetration testing
>done this week by a government agency.
>One of the "hackers" told me that depending on the length and complexity of
>the password he could crack the enable password from the MD5 hash pretty
>quickly.
>The passwords we normally use for enable secrets are over 8 character 
>random
>alphanumeric strings, so it was taking some time.
>Not believing him entirely, I suggested that I simplify the password a
>little to a dictionary word of 7 characters. I changed it to "kittens" and
>it took his unix box around 5 seconds to go through the dictionary
>performing MD5 hash on every word, then comparing the result with the real
>hash.
>
>I was quite surprised at how quick it was. Admittedly they need to see the
>MD5 hash somehow, but I've never gone over the top to cover these up before
>now.
>
>We also (a little carelessly) got caught out with a few switches with "IP
>HTTP SERVER" on as default, so the weakness with http allowed level 15
>access to the switches. Oops.
>
>Just thought I'd bring it up anyway. I think "no ip http server" and more
>complex passwords are in order.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Gareth
>
>""John Neiberger""  wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The enable secret would not be an easy thing to crack.  The enable
>password,
> > however, can be cracked easily with a number of utilities available for
>free
> > on the internet.
> >
> > If you have hackers attacking your network who have the capability to
>crack
> > the enable secret then you have much bigger problems.
> >
> > As I recall, the enable secret displayed when you do a show run is a
>one-way
> > hash, so the original cannot be determined from the encrypted version.
>I'll
> > have to check into that.
> >
> > A good hacker would spend his time elsewhere.  Sitting at the login 
>prompt
> > trying to guess passwords for a few years probably isn't a wise way to
>spend
> > one's time.  Hackers tend to go for the low-hanging fruit.
> >
> > Regards,
> > John
> >
> > On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 09:13:35 -0400, Gareth Hinton wrote:
> >
> > |  Hi all,
> > |
> > |  I'm asking this as a matter of interest after something I saw this
>week:
> > |  Given the following line of config:
> > |
> > |  enable secret 5 $1$32Pc$uq7Tr7gq4v22PqEG4WFF90
> > |
> > |  What are the chances of cracking the enable secret?  (Without raising
> > |  suspicicion by having 40 million attempts on the box itself.)
> > |  Lets say the password is an 8 character string of letters only, not
> > |  necessarily a dictionary word.
> > |
> > |  What's everybody's view, could it be easily hacked or not?
> > |
> > |
> > |  Thanks,
> > |
> > |  Gaz
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > _______________________________________________________
> > http://inbox.excite.com
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=23704&t=23670
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to