<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.technet.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>How LMCompatibilityLevel really works</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/b/jesper_johansson/archive/2006/07/26/443597.aspx</link><description>A while ago I once again got frustrated by LMCompatibilityLevel and the amount of confusion that is out there about it. There was also an intriguing thing in the SAMBA documentation that they (incorrectly) called "NTLM2 Session Response" that needed figured</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>Telligent Evolution Platform Developer Build (Build: 5.6.50428.7875)</generator><item><title>Save Your Exchange Password in Microsoft Outlook 2003/2007</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/b/jesper_johansson/archive/2006/07/26/443597.aspx#3236313</link><pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 17:14:11 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:3236313</guid><dc:creator>Save Your Exchange Password in Microsoft Outlook 2003/2007</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;PingBack from &lt;a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.petri.co.il/save-your-exchange-password-in-microsoft-outlook-2003-or-2007.htm"&gt;http://www.petri.co.il/save-your-exchange-password-in-microsoft-outlook-2003-or-2007.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://blogs.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=3236313" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>How LMCompatibilityLevel really works | Secure Software Engineering Blog</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/b/jesper_johansson/archive/2006/07/26/443597.aspx#2952710</link><pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:21:13 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:2952710</guid><dc:creator>How LMCompatibilityLevel really works | Secure Software Engineering Blog</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;PingBack from &lt;a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.secure-software-engineering.com/2008/03/02/how-lmcompatibilitylevel-really-works/"&gt;http://www.secure-software-engineering.com/2008/03/02/how-lmcompatibilitylevel-really-works/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://blogs.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=2952710" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: How LMCompatibilityLevel really works</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/b/jesper_johansson/archive/2006/07/26/443597.aspx#444349</link><pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:44:40 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:444349</guid><dc:creator>Alun Jones</dc:creator><description>Someone reminded me the other day that I should revisit this just to emphasise that this is not &amp;quot;Microsoft screwing up the standards&amp;quot;.&lt;br&gt;MD4 hashes are hashes of binary data, not strings, and as such, there is nothing to state whether or not a terminating NULL should be included, prior to calculating the hash.&lt;br&gt;Microsoft has a renewed interest in standards and interoperability, which can only be a good thing.&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=444349" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: How LMCompatibilityLevel really works</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/b/jesper_johansson/archive/2006/07/26/443597.aspx#443802</link><pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:24:55 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:443802</guid><dc:creator>Alun Jones</dc:creator><description>Ever the burden of the network developer, and particularly the crypto network developer, to get agreement between sender and recipient as to what the binary representation of an object is. &amp;nbsp;You have no idea (but can probably guess) how often this sort of error pops up in badly written software to poorly documented standards, as people disagree on padding, termination, delimiters, size counts, and connection durations.&lt;br&gt;A good protocol document would define these terms explicitly.&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=443802" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: How LMCompatibilityLevel really works</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/b/jesper_johansson/archive/2006/07/26/443597.aspx#443708</link><pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:02:23 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:443708</guid><dc:creator>Sean Krulewitch</dc:creator><description>Finally an accurate and definitive description of LMCompatibilityLevel and NTLMv2 Session Security from a trusted Microsoft source!&lt;br&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=443708" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>