On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:05:09PM +0000, Cappalli, Tim (Aruba Security) wrote:
Not sure I’d agree that an NTLMv2 hash is easier to crack than PAP.
That wasn't what I said... It is easily possible to crack MSCHAPv2. With TTLS, both are in the same level of encrypted tunnel, so essentially equivalent. When the client doesn't properly trust the RADIUS server, both are broken. But with PAP you can store the password on the server in the most secure way possible with $today's technology. With MSCHAPv2 you are limited to NTLM hashes, which are broken.
I’d take PEAPv0/EAP-MSCHAPv2 over EAP-TTLS/PAP any day.
Of course, anyone can choose what they're going to use. A lot of people just permit both, and TBH given that convenience for the end client device generally takes precedence over security the difference between them is probably not worth worrying about. :( Matthew -- Matthew Newton, Ph.D. <mcn4@leicester.ac.uk> Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services, I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, <ithelp@le.ac.uk>