[Facebook Password Cracker 2.9 Free Download
Virginie Fayad
Password crackers can be online or offline. Online password crackers, such as Hydra, are used when brute-forcing online network protocols and HTML forms. Situations where online brute forcing might be impractical include a remote system that limits the rate of sign-in attempts or a system that locks users out indefinitely after a predefined number of invalid login attempts.
In these scenarios, an offline password cracker attempts to gain access to a password where it is stored instead of using a brute-force attack strategy. Since systems and applications rarely store passwords without cryptographic protection, passwords must be cracked to make use of them.
A popular offline password cracker is John the Ripper. This tool enables security practitioners to crack passwords, regardless of encrypted or hashed passwords, message authentication codes (MACs) and hash-based MACs (HMACs), or other artifacts of the authentication process.
Editor's note: It is possible to use John the Ripper -- and any password cracker -- lawfully and unlawfully. It is up to you to ensure your usage is lawful. Get the appropriate permission and approval before attempting to crack passwords, and handle the information obtained ethically. If you are unsure whether a given usage is lawful, do not proceed until you have confirmed that it is -- for example, by discussing and validating your planned usage with your organization's counsel.
The tool is also notable for its ubiquity and accessibility. It's included in the default repositories for many Linux distributions, including Debian and Ubuntu, and installed by default in most penetration testing distributions, including Kali and BlackArch. A snap install of it is available, along with multiple container options in Docker Hub.
Simply put, John cracks passwords. It attempts to replicate the password-handling functionality of a target storage mechanism so that numerous password values can be attempted without relying on password validation.
Before using John the Ripper, one important note: We're using VMs to illustrate usage. In the case of this tool specifically, performance is important. Consider the relative advantages and disadvantages of using virtualization and the context. For example, you might find an IaaS where paying for CPU time can be an expensive proposition. Or you might get better performance running the tool on a host OS rather than a guest.
That aside, John is simple to use. At a minimum, you need to specify the stored password values you want to crack. If you provide no information other than that, the tool tries to figure out what format the stored values are in and assumes a set of constraints about what you might want to do. That said, in most cases, you should provide more information to allow the tool to operate most effectively.
While not necessary in every case, it's helpful to know the format passwords are stored in. This is because applications might manipulate formats in ways John might not expect -- a web application, for example, might Base64- or URL-encode values before storing them. It's also helpful because the built-in mechanisms used by John to determine type and format can be wrong. Consider two similar-in-format but vastly different values: an MD5 hash and an MD5 keyed hash. The outputs are identical in format, but the processes that led to the outputs are anything but. John wouldn't know the difference, unless you provide the missing information.
Figure 2 illustrates using the unshadow command. This is distributed with John the Ripper in most packages. It combines the contents of /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow on a Linux VM, in this case, Kali. Then, we used the john command and specified the format -- in this case, the crypt mechanism. Since we haven't told it what cracking mode to use, John begins with single crack and then proceeds to wordlist -- none was specified, so it used the default. Ultimately, it will move to incremental mode.
In a more complicated example, Figure 3 shows an attempt at cracking Microsoft Windows passwords. As with the Linux example, passwords must be put into a format John the Ripper can understand. To accomplish that, we used PwDump v8.2.
These values are fed into John the Ripper to crack in Figure 4. We specified wordlist mode and instructed it to use rockyou.txt, one of the built-in wordlists that comes by default with most security-focused Linux distributions. Note that you may need to extract the text file first. The passwords were set to weak values -- dictionary words in all cases -- to enable the cracking to complete quickly. These two examples demonstrate the most universally applicable and most basic usage of John the Ripper. For more advanced usage, you may need to get a little creative. Sometimes, the format of stored password values you can obtain are not in one of the formats supported by John out of the box. With a few clever modifications, however, you can convert to one of those with a little research.
Or it could just as well be true! In addition to making the password hash algorithme more complex they could in fact have added some password tamper checks to the opening of a VI altogether. Before the password protection was only checked when you tried to open the diagram, now there might be a check in the VI itself, when opening the front panel, not requesting a password entry but still failing completely for a tampered password, to prevent opening the VI altogether when the password hash is not consistent anymore.
Such a check is definitely not any significant cost in comparison to anything else necessary when opening a VI. As it seems, the performance bottleneck currently is in the maintenance of the linked lists that hold the project/library/class information as evidenced by those complains that seem to show a terrible slow down when opening a VI that is part of a several thousand VI hierarchy project in comparison to opening the same hierarchy outside of a project. It's not to surprising as the project needs to maintain dependency information for all the VIs in it and walking those linked list tables takes time and needs to be protected too from concurrent access to avoid inconsistencies.
The password tamper check reads a few hundred bytes from the already opened VI resource (LabVIEW needs to open and load that file into memory no matter what) and then does some MD5 and possibly other hash checks on it, and that costs a LOT less time than walking the linked list even a single time for any non trivial project.
I'm not going to spend any time on this, as NI will and does have to modify the password check at least every time they get aware of the availability of such a cracker and even without such knowledge likely will change it every now and then just for the fun of it, to pester whoever may have made such a cracker in private.
The new password checking is significantly more complex in terms of what it checks in the comparison. However, the new values that it uses are already known (loaded and/or computed) by that point in load, so the extra time is on the order of tens of microseconds, maybe hundreds of microseconds in particularly complex cases. Disclaimer: this estimate is based on personal knowledge of the change and how it works, not on actual recorded measurements. There are always efforts to improve load time, so I think that any negative effects this had (which is only visible on password protected VIs) are more than compensated for.
The person who wrote that cracker definitely had inside knowledge about the LabVIEW sources. I doubt he still works in a position that would allow him such access to checkout how the changed password check is done, so it is rather unlikely that he will be able to "fix" it.
It's a bit of a moot point with regards to LV though. Most of the time it's just used to prevent critisism of messy diagrams and there are no real secrets hidden. If IP is the problem it's buried in the exe. So apart from the exercise or the challenge, there isn't a lot of point in cracking diagrams. You're better off spending the time going out and getting laid.
Off the record, NI put in stronger VI password protection purely as a user-feature, not as some sort of DRM. Our own diagrams that we do password protect are much less important than protecting our customers' IP. If you are having a problem accessing your own VIs due to mutation issues, please contact support.
IMO, what would be best is to just get rid of the password protection entirely for LV 2013. Hell, even put it in 2012 f4. Existing password-protected VIs would just open normally as if there wasn't a password. As for intellectual property, it's their fault for expecting miracles from what is essentially security through obscurity. If they care so much about their precious code, they can just remove the block diagrams, and deal with the side-effects. Open source is the way to go, and NI shouldn't help people hide their code if those people choose to release it unencrypted. If the block diagram is accessible to LabVIEW, but it doesn't obey the user who wants to view it, that is certainly not user-friendly, and I could even go so far as to classify it as a bug. Though unfortunately I doubt NI will see it my way.
Also, does anyone else see the irony in describing a "feature" designed specifically to go against the wishes of the user whose computer it's running on, as a "user-feature"? And how is that not DRM? If I can find a way to remove this P.O.S. code that doesn't belong in any commercial application, I'll do so in a heartbeat.
You'd better hope that NI don't take you to task over the licensing of their closed-source, proprietary software then. (you admitted earlier that you are attempting to breach their licensing conditions )
Well it's not like I'm trying to make a profit from what I'm doing. Despite what I said before, I'm still not sure about posting what I find if I do figure anything out for that reason, but I can do what I want with my own computer if it doesn't affect anyone else. Think about it like changing a setting, only more complicated: something isn't working the way I want, so I want to change it so it does. I don't see anything to "take me to task" over, as nobody's losing anything.
795a8134c1