I know basics of security. Problem basis on this that some users in
network
must have access to cd drives. If i will change BIOS boot order and look
down
the bios it not solution because most of main boars bioses allowing to
change
boot order without entering to BIOS.
I've never heard of this, but I'll have to take your word for it.
Well, if your users require the ability to boot from a CD, that's a risk
you'll have to accept. No OS can survive that.
For ex. F8 key and there is no option to
block this in BIOS system
I have this kind of PCs in my network
Disk encryption it is solution but in my country it is very expensive
solution
.
I'm confused. Aren't there free disk encryption solutions out there?
Well, if you really wanted to protect against local SAM attacks via a boot
CD, you could run the SYSKEY command to enable syskey encryption of the SAM
that requires the user to enter a password every time the system boots. A
bit of a pain, but then increased security sometimes means increased pain
and effort.
Writing policy is no solution too because this tool decrypting user
passwords, user will have original local administrator password in 1 min.
(even if it is strong password).
No, if the admin password is not stored as an LM hash format, and it either
contains a special non-printable character such as ÿ e.g. ALT-0255, or is
longer than 10 characters, cracking the local admin password becomes a
significant, maybe insurmountable challenge, even with current rainbow
tables.
Thanks a lot again for your help guys but I think Microsoft should write
very fast some security patch.
There really isn't much Microsoft can do about this, it's a security issue
in the hardware, the firmware, and it impacts all OSes. There are ways to
defend against it, but it can increase your pain and decrease your
functionality.
I think adding salt to the SAM hashes [even as simple as the SID or user
name] would help prevent rainbow tables and other kinds of brute force
attacks, but some experts at Microsoft have argued against this, and have
won for now. I believe part of the argument is that if someone owns your
SAM, they have already owned your box. I'm not sure I agree entirely with
this logic here, because a password on one system can give an attacker
access to other systems, for example.