File: rfc2433.txt

package info (click to toggle)
doc-rfc 20181229-2
  • links: PTS, VCS
  • area: non-free
  • in suites: buster
  • size: 570,944 kB
  • sloc: xml: 285,646; sh: 107; python: 90; perl: 42; makefile: 14
file content (1123 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 34,502 bytes parent folder | download | duplicates (5)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123






Network Working Group                                            G. Zorn
Request for Comments: 2433                                       S. Cobb
Category: Informational                            Microsoft Corporation
                                                            October 1998


                     Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.

IESG Note

   The protocol described here has significant vulnerabilities.  People
   planning on implementing or using this protocol should read section
   12, "Security Considerations".

1.  Abstract

   The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) [1] provides a standard method for
   transporting multi-protocol datagrams over point-to-point links.  PPP
   defines an extensible Link Control Protocol and a family of Network
   Control Protocols (NCPs) for establishing and configuring different
   network-layer protocols.

   This document describes Microsoft's PPP CHAP dialect (MS-CHAP), which
   extends the user authentication functionality provided on Windows
   networks to remote workstations.  MS-CHAP is closely derived from the
   PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol described in RFC 1994
   [2], which the reader should have at hand.

   The algorithms used in the generation of various MS-CHAP protocol
   fields are described in an appendix.

2.  Introduction

   Microsoft created MS-CHAP to authenticate remote Windows
   workstations, providing the functionality to which LAN-based users
   are accustomed while integrating the encryption and hashing
   algorithms used on Windows networks.




Zorn & Cobb                  Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 2433             Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions         Ocotober 1998


   Where possible, MS-CHAP is consistent with standard CHAP.  Briefly,
   the differences between MS-CHAP and standard CHAP are:

      * MS-CHAP is enabled by negotiating CHAP Algorithm 0x80 in LCP
        option 3, Authentication Protocol.

      * The MS-CHAP Response packet is in a format designed for
        compatibility with Microsoft's Windows NT 3.5, 3.51 and 4.0, and
        Windows95 networking products.  The MS-CHAP format does not
        require the authenticator to store a clear-text or reversibly
        encrypted password.

      * MS-CHAP provides authenticator-controlled authentication retry
        and password changing mechanisms.

      * MS-CHAP defines a set of reason-for-failure codes returned in
        the Failure packet Message field.

3.  Specification of Requirements

   In this document, the key words "MAY", "MUST, "MUST NOT", "optional",
   "recommended", "SHOULD", and "SHOULD NOT" are to be interpreted as
   described in [2].

4.  LCP Configuration

   The LCP configuration for MS-CHAP is identical to that for standard
   CHAP, except that the Algorithm field has value 0x80, rather than the
   MD5 value 0x05.  PPP implementations which do not support MS-CHAP,
   but correctly implement LCP Config-Rej, should have no problem
   dealing with this non-standard option.

5.  Challenge Packet

   The MS-CHAP Challenge packet is identical in format to the standard
   CHAP Challenge packet.

   MS-CHAP authenticators send an 8-octet challenge Value field.  Peers
   need not duplicate Microsoft's algorithm for selecting the 8-octet
   value, but the standard guidelines on randomness [1,2,7] SHOULD be
   observed.

   Microsoft authenticators do not currently provide information in the
   Name field.  This may change in the future.







Zorn & Cobb                  Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 2433             Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions         Ocotober 1998


6.  Response Packet

   The MS-CHAP Response packet is identical in format to the standard
   CHAP Response packet.  However, the Value field is sub-formatted
   differently as follows:

      24 octets: LAN Manager compatible challenge response
      24 octets: Windows NT compatible challenge response
       1 octet : "Use Windows NT compatible challenge response" flag

   The LAN Manager compatible challenge response is an encoded function
   of the password and the received challenge as output by the routine
   LmChallengeResponse() (see section A.1, below).  LAN Manager
   passwords are limited to 14 case-insensitive OEM characters.  Note
   that use of the LAN Manager compatible challenge response has been
   deprecated; peers SHOULD NOT generate it, and the sub-field SHOULD be
   zero-filled.  The algorithm used in the generation of the LAN Manager
   compatible challenge response is described here for informational
   purposes only.

   The Windows NT compatible challenge response is an encoded function
   of the password and the received challenge as output by the routine
   NTChallengeResponse() (see section A.5, below).  The Windows NT
   password is a string of 0 to (theoretically) 256 case-sensitive
   Unicode [8] characters.  Current versions of Windows NT limit
   passwords to 14 characters, mainly for compatibility reasons; this
   may change in the future.

   The "use Windows NT compatible challenge response" flag, if 1,
   indicates that the Windows NT response is provided and should be used
   in preference to the LAN Manager response.  The LAN Manager response
   will still be used if the account does not have a Windows NT password
   hash, e.g.  if the password has not been changed since the account
   was uploaded from a LAN Manager 2.x account database.  If the flag is
   0, the Windows NT response is ignored and the LAN Manager response is
   used.  Since the use of LAN Manager authentication has been
   deprecated, this flag SHOULD always be set (1) and the LAN Manager
   compatible challenge response field SHOULD be zero-filled.

   The Name field identifies the peer's user account name.  The Windows
   NT domain name may prefix the user's account name (e.g.
   "BIGCO\johndoe" where "BIGCO" is a Windows NT domain containing the
   user account "john-doe").  If a domain is not provided, the backslash
   should also be omitted, (e.g. "johndoe").







Zorn & Cobb                  Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 2433             Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions         Ocotober 1998


7.  Success Packet

   The Success packet is identical in format to the standard CHAP
   Success packet.

8.  Failure Packet

   The Failure packet is identical in format to the standard CHAP
   Failure packet.  There is, however, formatted text stored in the
   Message field which, contrary to the standard CHAP rules, affects the
   protocol.  The Message field format is:

         "E=eeeeeeeeee R=r C=cccccccccccccccc V=vvvvvvvvvv"

      where

         The "eeeeeeeeee" is the decimal error code (need not be 10
         digits) corresponding to one of those listed below, though
         implementations should deal with codes not on this list
         gracefully.

            646 ERROR_RESTRICTED_LOGON_HOURS
            647 ERROR_ACCT_DISABLED
            648 ERROR_PASSWD_EXPIRED
            649 ERROR_NO_DIALIN_PERMISSION
            691 ERROR_AUTHENTICATION_FAILURE
            709 ERROR_CHANGING_PASSWORD

         The "r" is a flag set to "1" if a retry is allowed, and "0" if
         not.  When the authenticator sets this flag to "1" it disables
         short timeouts, expecting the peer to prompt the user for new
         credentials and resubmit the response.

         The "cccccccccccccccc" is 16 hexadecimal digits representing an
         ASCII representation of a new challenge value.  This field is
         optional.  If it is not sent, the authenticator expects the
         resubmitted response to be calculated based on the previous
         challenge value plus decimal 23 in the first octet, i.e. the
         one immediately following the Value Size field.  Windows 95
         authenticators may send this field.  Windows NT authenticators
         do not, but may in the future.  Both systems implement peer
         support of this field.

         The "vvvvvvvvvv" is the decimal version code (need not be 10
         digits) indicating the MS-CHAP protocol version supported on
         the server.  Currently, this is interesting only in selecting a
         Change Password packet type.  If the field is not present the
         version should be assumed to be 1; since use of the version 1



Zorn & Cobb                  Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 2433             Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions         Ocotober 1998


         Change Password packet has been deprecated, this field SHOULD
         always contain a value greater than or equal to 2.

   Implementations should accept but ignore additional text they do not
   recognize.

9.  Change Password Packet (version 1)

   The version 1 Change Password packet does not appear in standard
   CHAP.  It allows the peer to change the password on the account
   specified in the previous Response packet.  The version 1 Change
   Password packet should be sent only if the authenticator reports
   ERROR_PASSWD_EXPIRED (E=648) and V is either missing or equal to one
   in the Message field of the Failure packet.

   The use of the Change Password Packet (version 1) has been
   deprecated; the format of the packet is described here for
   informational purposes, but peers SHOULD NOT transmit it.

   The format of this packet is as follows:

       1 octet : Code (=5)
       1 octet : Identifier
       2 octets: Length (=72)
      16 octets: Encrypted LAN Manager Old password Hash
      16 octets: Encrypted LAN Manager New Password Hash
      16 octets: Encrypted Windows NT Old Password Hash
      16 octets: Encrypted Windows NT New Password Hash
       2 octets: Password Length
       2 octets: Flags

      Code
         5

      Identifier
         The Identifier field is one octet and aids in matching requests
         and replies.  The value is the Identifier of the received
         Failure packet to which this packet responds plus 1.

      Length
         72

      Encrypted LAN Manager New Password Hash
      Encrypted LAN Manager Old Password Hash
         These fields contain the LAN Manager password hash of the new
         and old passwords encrypted with the last received challenge
         value, as output by the routine LmEncryptedPasswordHash() (see
         section A.8, below).



Zorn & Cobb                  Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 2433             Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions         Ocotober 1998


      Encrypted Windows NT New Password Hash
      Encrypted Windows NT Old Password Hash
         These fields contain the Windows NT password hash of the new
         and old passwords encrypted with the last received challenge
         value, as output by the pseudo-code routine
         NtEncryptedPasswordHash() (see section A.10, below).

      Password Length
         The length in octets of the LAN Manager compatible form of the
         new password.  If this value is greater than or equal to zero
         and less than or equal to 14 it is assumed that the encrypted
         LAN Manager password hash fields are valid.  Otherwise, it is
         assumed these fields are not valid, in which case the Windows
         NT compatible passwords MUST be provided.

      Flags
         This field is two octets in length.  It is a bit field of
         option flags where 0 is the least significant bit of the 16-bit
         quantity:

            Bit 0
               If this bit is set (1), it indicates that the encrypted
               Windows NT hashed passwords are valid and should be used.
               If this bit is cleared (0), the Windows NT fields are not
               used and the LAN Manager fields must be provided.

            Bits 1-15
               Reserved, always clear (0).

10.  Change Password Packet (version 2)

   The version 2 Change Password packet does not appear in standard
   CHAP.  It allows the peer to change the password on the account
   specified in the preceding Response packet.  The version 2 Change
   Password packet should be sent only if the authenticator reports
   ERROR_PASSWD_EXPIRED (E=648) and a version of 2 or greater in the
   Message field of the Failure packet.

   This packet type is supported by Windows NT 3.51, 4.0 and recent
   versions of Windows 95.  It is not supported by Windows NT 3.5 or
   early versions of Windows 95.

      The format of this packet is as follows:

           1 octet  : Code
           1 octet  : Identifier
           2 octets : Length
         516 octets : Password Encrypted with Old NT Hash



Zorn & Cobb                  Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 2433             Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions         Ocotober 1998


          16 octets : Old NT Hash Encrypted with New NT Hash
         516 octets : Password Encrypted with Old LM Hash
          16 octets : Old LM Hash Encrypted With New NT Hash
          24 octets : LAN Manager compatible challenge response
          24 octets : Windows NT compatible challenge response
           2-octet  : Flags

      Code
         6

      Identifier
         The Identifier field is one octet and aids in matching requests
         and replies.  The value is the Identifier of the received
         Failure packet to which this packet responds plus 1.

      Length
         1118

      Password Encrypted with Old NT Hash
         This field contains the PWBLOCK form of the new Windows NT
         password encrypted with the old Windows NT password hash, as
         output by the NewPasswordEncryptedWithOldNtPasswordHash()
         routine (see section A.11, below).

      Old NT Hash Encrypted with New NT Hash
         This field contains the old Windows NT password hash encrypted
         with the new Windows NT password hash, as output by the
         OldNtPasswordHashEncryptedWithNewNtPasswordHash() routine (see
         section A.14, below).

      Password Encrypted with Old LM Hash
         This field contains the PWBLOCK form of the new Windows NT
         password encrypted with the old LAN Manager password hash, as
         output by the NewPasswordEncryptedWithOldLmPasswordHash()
         routine described in section A.15, below.  Note, however, that
         the use of this field has been deprecated: peers SHOULD NOT
         generate it, and this field SHOULD be zero-filled.

      Old LM Hash Encrypted With New NT Hash
         This field contains the old LAN Manager password hash encrypted
         with the new Windows NT password hash, as output by the
         OldLmPasswordHashEncryptedWithNewNtPasswordHash() routine (see
         section A.16, below).  Note, however, that the use of this
         field has been deprecated: peers SHOULD NOT generate it, and
         this field SHOULD be zero-filled.






Zorn & Cobb                  Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 2433             Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions         Ocotober 1998


      LAN Manager compatible challenge response
      Windows NT compatible challenge response
         The challenge response field (as described in the Response
         packet description), but calculated on the new password and the
         same challenge used in the last response.  Note that use of the
         LAN Manager compatible challenge response has been deprecated;
         peers SHOULD NOT generate it, and the field SHOULD be zero-
         filled.

      Flags
         This field is two octets in length.  It is a bit field of
         option flags where 0 is the least significant bit of the 16-bit
         quantity.  The format of this field is illustrated in the
         following diagram:

                   1
         5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                           | |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Bit 0
               The "use Windows NT compatible challenge response" flag
               as described in the Response packet.

            Bit 1
               Set (1) indicates that the "Password Encrypted with Old
               LM Hash" and "Old LM Hash Encrypted With New NT Hash"
               fields are valid and should be used.  Clear (0) indicates
               these fields are not valid.  This bit SHOULD always be
               clear (0).

            Bits 2-15
               Reserved, always clear (0).

11.  Security Considerations

   As an implementation detail, the authenticator SHOULD limit the
   number of password retries allowed to make brute-force password
   guessing attacks more difficult.

   Because the challenge value is encrypted using the password hash to
   form the response and the challenge is transmitted in clear-text
   form, both passive known-plaintext and active chosen-plaintext
   attacks against the password hash are possible.  Suitable precautions
   (i.e., frequent password changes) SHOULD be taken in environments
   where eavesdropping is likely.




Zorn & Cobb                  Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 2433             Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions         Ocotober 1998


   The Change Password (version 1) packet is vulnerable to a passive
   eavesdropping attack which can easily reveal the new password hash.
   For this reason, it MUST NOT be sent if eavesdropping is possible.

12.  References

   [1] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51, RFC
       1661, July 1994.

   [2] Simpson, W., "PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol
       (CHAP)", RFC 1994, August 1996.

   [3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
       Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [4] "Data Encryption Standard (DES)", Federal Information Processing
       Standard Publication 46-2, National Institute of Standards and
       Technology, December 1993.

   [5] Rivest, R., "MD4 Message Digest Algorithm", RFC 1320, April 1992.

   [6] RC4 is a proprietary encryption algorithm available under license
       from RSA Data Security Inc.  For licensing information, contact:
       RSA Data Security, Inc.
       100 Marine Parkway
       Redwood City, CA 94065-1031

   [7] Eastlake, D., Crocker, S., and J. Schiller, "Randomness
       Recomnendations for Security", RFC 1750, December 1994.

   [8] "The Unicode Standard, Version 2.0", The Unicode Consortium,
       Addison-Wesley, 1996. ISBN 0-201-48345-9.

   [9] "DES Modes of Operation", Federal Information Processing
       Standards Publication 81, National Institute of Standards and
       Technology, December 1980

13.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks (in no particular order) to Jeff Haag (Jeff_Haag@3com.com),
   Bill Palter (palter@network-alchemy.com), Bruce Johnson
   (bjohnson@microsoft.com), Tony Bell (tonybe@microsoft.com), Benoit
   Martin (ehlija@vircom.com), and Joe Davies (josephd@microsoft.com)
   for useful suggestions and feedback.







Zorn & Cobb                  Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 2433             Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions         Ocotober 1998


14.  Chair's Address

   The PPP Extensions Working Group can be contacted via the current
   chair:

   Karl Fox
   Ascend Communications
   3518 Riverside Drive
   Suite 101
   Columbus, OH 43221

   Phone: +1 614 326 6841
   EMail: karl@ascend.com

15.  Authors' Addresses

   Questions about this memo can also be directed to:

   Glen Zorn
   Microsoft Corporation
   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, Washington 98052

   Phone: +1 425 703 1559
   Fax:   +1 425 936 7329
   EMail: glennz@microsoft.com


   Steve Cobb
   Microsoft Corporation
   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, Washington 98052

   EMail: stevec@microsoft.com

















Zorn & Cobb                  Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 2433             Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions         Ocotober 1998


Appendix A - Pseudocode

   The routines mentioned in the text are described in pseudocode below.

A.1 LmChallengeResponse()

   LmChallengeResponse(
   IN  8-octet          Challenge,
   IN  0-to-14-oem-char Password,
   OUT 24-octet         Response )
   {
      LmPasswordHash( Password, giving PasswordHash )
      ChallengeResponse( Challenge, PasswordHash, giving Response )
   }


A.2 LmPasswordHash()

   LmPasswordHash(
   IN  0-to-14-oem-char Password,
   OUT 16-octet         PasswordHash )
   {
      Set UcasePassword to the uppercased Password
      Zero pad UcasePassword to 14 characters

      DesHash( 1st 7-octets of UcasePassword,
               giving 1st 8-octets of PasswordHash )

      DesHash( 2nd 7-octets of UcasePassword,
               giving 2nd 8-octets of PasswordHash )
   }


A.3 DesHash()

   DesHash(
   IN  7-octet Clear,
   OUT 8-octet Cypher )
   {
      /*
       * Make Cypher an irreversibly encrypted form of Clear by
       * encrypting known text using Clear as the secret key.
       * The known text consists of the string
       *
       *              KGS!@#$%
       */

      Set StdText to "KGS!@#$%"



Zorn & Cobb                  Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 2433             Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions         Ocotober 1998


      DesEncrypt( StdText, Clear, giving Cypher )
   }


A.4 DesEncrypt()

   DesEncrypt(
   IN  8-octet Clear,
   IN  7-octet Key,
   OUT 8-octet Cypher )
   {
      /*
       * Use the DES encryption algorithm [4] in ECB mode [9]
       * to encrypt Clear into Cypher such that Cypher can
       * only be decrypted back to Clear by providing Key.
       * Note that the DES algorithm takes as input a 64-bit
       * stream where the 8th, 16th, 24th, etc.  bits are
       * parity bits ignored by the encrypting algorithm.
       * Unless you write your own DES to accept 56-bit input
       * without parity, you will need to insert the parity bits
       * yourself.
       */
   }


A.5 NtChallengeResponse()

   NtChallengeResponse(
   IN  8-octet               Challenge,
   IN  0-to-256-unicode-char Password,
   OUT 24-octet              Response )
   {
      NtPasswordHash( Password, giving PasswordHash )
      ChallengeResponse( Challenge, PasswordHash, giving Response )
   }


A.6 NtPasswordHash()

   NtPasswordHash(
   IN  0-to-256-unicode-char Password,
   OUT 16-octet              PasswordHash )
   {
      /*
       * Use the MD4 algorithm [5] to irreversibly hash Password
       * into PasswordHash.  Only the password is hashed without
       * including any terminating 0.
       */



Zorn & Cobb                  Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 2433             Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions         Ocotober 1998


   }


A.7 ChallengeResponse()

   ChallengeResponse(
   IN  8-octet  Challenge,
   IN  16-octet PasswordHash,
   OUT 24-octet Response )
   {
      Set ZPasswordHash to PasswordHash zero-padded to 21 octets

      DesEncrypt( Challenge,
                  1st 7-octets of ZPasswordHash,
                  giving 1st 8-octets of Response )

      DesEncrypt( Challenge,
                  2nd 7-octets of ZPasswordHash,
                  giving 2nd 8-octets of Response )

      DesEncrypt( Challenge,
                  3rd 7-octets of ZPasswordHash,
                  giving 3rd 8-octets of Response )
   }


A.8 LmEncryptedPasswordHash()

   LmEncryptedPasswordHash(
   IN  0-to-14-oem-char Password,
   IN  8-octet          KeyValue,
   OUT 16-octet         Cypher )
   {
      LmPasswordHash( Password, giving PasswordHash )

      PasswordHashEncryptedWithBlock( PasswordHash,
                                      KeyValue,
                                      giving Cypher )
   }


A.9 PasswordHashEncryptedWithBlock()

   PasswordHashEncryptedWithBlock(
   IN  16-octet PasswordHash,
   IN  8-octet  Block,
   OUT 16-octet Cypher )
   {



Zorn & Cobb                  Informational                     [Page 13]

RFC 2433             Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions         Ocotober 1998


      DesEncrypt( 1st 8-octets PasswordHash,
                  1st 7-octets Block,
                  giving 1st 8-octets Cypher )

      DesEncrypt( 2nd 8-octets PasswordHash,
                  1st 7-octets Block,
                  giving 2nd 8-octets Cypher )
   }


A.10 NtEncryptedPasswordHash()

   NtEncryptedPasswordHash(  IN   0-to-14-oem-char  Password IN  8-octet
   Challenge OUT 16-octet         Cypher ) {
      NtPasswordHash( Password, giving PasswordHash )

      PasswordHashEncryptedWithBlock( PasswordHash,
                                      Challenge,
                                      giving Cypher )
   }


A.11 NewPasswordEncryptedWithOldNtPasswordHash()

   datatype-PWBLOCK
   {
      256-unicode-char Password
      4-octets         PasswordLength
   }

   NewPasswordEncryptedWithOldNtPasswordHash(
   IN  0-to-256-unicode-char NewPassword,
   IN  0-to-256-unicode-char OldPassword,
   OUT datatype-PWBLOCK      EncryptedPwBlock )
   {
      NtPasswordHash( OldPassword, giving PasswordHash )

      EncryptPwBlockWithPasswordHash( NewPassword,
                                      PasswordHash,
                                      giving EncryptedPwBlock )
   }


A.12 EncryptPwBlockWithPasswordHash()

   EncryptPwBlockWithPasswordHash(
   IN  0-to-256-unicode-char Password,
   IN  16-octet              PasswordHash,



Zorn & Cobb                  Informational                     [Page 14]

RFC 2433             Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions         Ocotober 1998


   OUT datatype-PWBLOCK      PwBlock )
   {

      Fill ClearPwBlock with random octet values
      PwSize = lstrlenW( Password ) * sizeof( unicode-char )
      PwOffset = sizeof( ClearPwBlock.Password ) - PwSize
      Move PwSize octets to (ClearPwBlock.Password + PwOffset ) from Password
      ClearPwBlock.PasswordLength = PwSize
      Rc4Encrypt( ClearPwBlock,
                  sizeof( ClearPwBlock ),
                  PasswordHash,
                  sizeof( PasswordHash ),
                  giving PwBlock )
   }


A.13 Rc4Encrypt()

   Rc4Encrypt(
   IN  x-octet Clear,
   IN  integer ClearLength,
   IN  y-octet Key,
   IN  integer KeyLength,
   OUT x-octet Cypher )
   {
      /*
       * Use the RC4 encryption algorithm [6] to encrypt Clear of
       * length ClearLength octets into a Cypher of the same length
       * such that the Cypher can only be decrypted back to Clear
       * by providing a Key of length KeyLength octets.
       */
   }


A.14 OldNtPasswordHashEncryptedWithNewNtPasswordHash()

   OldNtPasswordHashEncryptedWithNewNtPasswordHash(
   IN  0-to-256-unicode-char NewPassword,
   IN  0-to-256-unicode-char OldPassword,
   OUT 16-octet              EncryptedPasswordHash )
   {
      NtPasswordHash( OldPassword, giving OldPasswordHash )
      NtPasswordHash( NewPassword, giving NewPasswordHash )
      NtPasswordHashEncryptedWithBlock( OldPasswordHash,
                                        NewPasswordHash,
                                        giving EncryptedPasswordHash )
   }




Zorn & Cobb                  Informational                     [Page 15]

RFC 2433             Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions         Ocotober 1998


A.15 NewPasswordEncryptedWithOldLmPasswordHash()

   NewPasswordEncryptedWithOldLmPasswordHash(
   IN  0-to-256-unicode-char NewPassword,
   IN  0-to-256-unicode-char OldPassword,
   OUT datatype-PWBLOCK      EncryptedPwBlock )
   {
      LmPasswordHash( OldPassword, giving PasswordHash )

      EncryptPwBlockWithPasswordHash( NewPassword, PasswordHash,
                                      giving EncryptedPwBlock )
   }


A.16 OldLmPasswordHashEncryptedWithNewNtPasswordHash()

   OldLmPasswordHashEncryptedWithNewNtPasswordHash(
   IN  0-to-256-unicode-char NewPassword,
   IN  0-to-256-unicode-char OldPassword,
   OUT 16-octet              EncryptedPasswordHash )
   {
      LmPasswordHash( OldPassword, giving OldPasswordHash )

      NtPasswordHash( NewPassword, giving NewPasswordHash )

      NtPasswordHashEncryptedWithBlock( OldPasswordHash, NewPasswordHash,
                                      giving EncrytptedPasswordHash )
   }


A.17 NtPasswordHashEncryptedWithBlock()

   NtPasswordHashEncryptedWithBlock(
   IN  16-octet PasswordHash,
   IN  16-octet Block,
   OUT 16-octet Cypher )
   {
      DesEncrypt( 1st 8-octets PasswordHash,
                  1st 7-octets Block,
                  giving 1st 8-octets Cypher )

      DesEncrypt( 2nd 8-octets PasswordHash,
                  2nd 7-octets Block,
                  giving 2nd 8-octets Cypher )
   }






Zorn & Cobb                  Informational                     [Page 16]

RFC 2433             Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions         Ocotober 1998


Appendix B - Examples

B.1 Negotiation Examples

   Here are some examples of typical negotiations.  The peer is on the
   left and the authenticator is on the right.

   The packet sequence ID is incremented on each authentication retry
   Response and on the change password response.  All cases where the
   packet sequence ID is updated are noted below.

   Response retry is never allowed after Change Password.  Change
   Password may occur after Response retry.  The implied challenge form
   is shown in the examples, though all cases of "first challenge+23"
   should be replaced by the "C=cccccccccccccccc" challenge if
   authenticator supplies it in the Failure packet.

B.1.1 Successful authentication

            <- Challenge
        Response ->
            <- Success


B.1.2 Failed authentication with no retry allowed

            <- Challenge
        Response ->
            <- Failure (E=691 R=0)


B.1.3 Successful authentication after retry

            <- Challenge
        Response ->
            <- Failure (E=691 R=1), disable short timeout
        Response (++ID) to first challenge+23 ->
            <- Success


B.1.4 Failed hack attack with 3 attempts allowed

            <- Challenge
        Response ->
            <- Failure (E=691 R=1), disable short timeout
        Response (++ID) to first challenge+23 ->
            <- Failure (E=691 R=1), disable short timeout
        Response (++ID) to first challenge+23+23 ->



Zorn & Cobb                  Informational                     [Page 17]

RFC 2433             Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions         Ocotober 1998


            <- Failure (E=691 R=0)


B.1.5 Successful authentication with password change

            <- Challenge
        Response ->
            <- Failure (E=648 R=0 V=2), disable short timeout
        ChangePassword (++ID) to first challenge ->
            <- Success


B.1.6 Successful authentication with retry and password change

            <- Challenge
        Response ->
            <- Failure (E=691 R=1), disable short timeout
        Response (++ID) to first challenge+23 ->
            <- Failure (E=648 R=0 V=2), disable short timeout
        ChangePassword (++ID) to first challenge+23 ->
            <- Success

B.2 Hash Example

Intermediate values for password "MyPw".

   8-octet Challenge:
   10 2D B5 DF 08 5D 30 41

   0-to-256-unicode-char NtPassword:
   4D 00 79 00 50 00 77 00

   16-octet NtPasswordHash:
   FC 15 6A F7 ED CD 6C 0E DD E3 33 7D 42 7F 4E AC

   24-octet NtChallengeResponse:
   4E 9D 3C 8F 9C FD 38 5D 5B F4 D3 24 67 91 95 6C
   A4 C3 51 AB 40 9A 3D 61

B.3 Example of DES Key Generation

DES uses 56-bit keys, expanded to 64 bits by the insertion of parity
bits.  After the parity of the key has been fixed, every eighth bit is a
parity bit and the number of bits that are set (1) in each octet is odd;
i.e., odd parity.  Note that many DES engines do not check parity,
however, simply stripping the parity bits.  The following example
illustrates the values resulting from the use of the 16-octet
NTPasswordHash shown in Appendix B.2 to generate a pair of DES keys



Zorn & Cobb                  Informational                     [Page 18]

RFC 2433             Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions         Ocotober 1998


(e.g., for use in the NtPasswordHashEncryptedWithBlock() described in
Appendix A.17).

   16-octet NtPasswordHash:
   FC 15 6A F7 ED CD 6C 0E DD E3 33 7D 42 7F 4E AC

   First "raw" DES key (initial 7 octets of password hash):
   FC 15 6A F7 ED CD 6C

   First parity-corrected DES key (eight octets):
   FD 0B 5B 5E 7F 6E 34 D9

   Second "raw" DES key (second 7 octets of password hash)
   0E DD E3 33 7D 42 7F

   Second parity-corrected DES key (eight octets):
   0E 6E 79 67 37 EA 08 FE


































Zorn & Cobb                  Informational                     [Page 19]

RFC 2433             Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions         Ocotober 1998


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
























Zorn & Cobb                  Informational                     [Page 20]