Export (0) Print
Expand All

5.1 Security Considerations for Implementers

A CIFS server can permit anonymous or guest account logons. Such unauthenticated logons can provide access to services that need to be protected, and that can potentially expose vulnerabilities in the implementation.<356>

Share level access control passwords are transmitted in plaintext. The server can also indicate that it requires plaintext user level authentication. A "man-in-the-middle" attack can be used to clear the bit in the SMB_COM_NEGOTIATE response that indicates that the server supports challenge/response authentication, thus causing the client to assume that plaintext authentication is required.<357>

Several weaknesses in the LAN Manager (LM) challenge/response authentication scheme have been discovered and published. CIFS usage of LM challenge/response is specified in section 3.1.5.2.

Neither the LM nor the NTLM challenge/response algorithm includes a client nonce. A client nonce is used to protect against dictionary attacks by rogue servers. The LMv2 and NTLMv2 challenge/response algorithms do include a client nonce.

Message signing is optional. Message signing is used to prevent connection hijacking.

The protocol does not sign OpLock break requests from the server to the client if message signing is enabled. This can allow an attacker to affect performance but does not allow an attacker to deny access or alter data.

The algorithm used for message signing has been shown to be subject to collision attacks. For more information, see [MD5Collision].

The protocol does not encrypt the data that is exchanged. To provide stricter data security, the underlying transport provides encryption. Otherwise, a different protocol is more applicable.

 
Show:
© 2014 Microsoft