You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
A common attack on IPv4 I use is to passively force or actively coerce HTTP to SMB authentication to ntlmrelayx in order to relay to LDAP. This requires the use of the NetBIOS name of the relaying server in order for the targeted Windows installations to trust the connection address. Luckily Responder provides that NetBIOS name when running so I use that for this.
I can execute the same attack as above on IPv6 using mitm6 but I still need Responder's NetBIOS name which means I need both mitm6 and Responder running at the same time targeting the same networks. Would it be possible for mitm6 to provide a NetBIOS name that can be used instead of Responder's? BTW, is it safe to use mitm6 and Responder at the same time in this way?
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi,
Thank you for this tool. I use it all the time!
A common attack on IPv4 I use is to passively force or actively coerce HTTP to SMB authentication to ntlmrelayx in order to relay to LDAP. This requires the use of the NetBIOS name of the relaying server in order for the targeted Windows installations to trust the connection address. Luckily Responder provides that NetBIOS name when running so I use that for this.
I can execute the same attack as above on IPv6 using mitm6 but I still need Responder's NetBIOS name which means I need both mitm6 and Responder running at the same time targeting the same networks. Would it be possible for mitm6 to provide a NetBIOS name that can be used instead of Responder's? BTW, is it safe to use mitm6 and Responder at the same time in this way?
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: