[SPARCbook] passwd cracking

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2000 sparcbook-request at sunhelp.org wrote:

> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. passwd cracking (Carl Lewis)
>    3. Re: passwd cracking (Ken Hansen)
>   10. Re: passwd cracking (The Archimage)
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 1
> From: Carl Lewis <CLewis at msi-world.com>
> To: "'sparcbook at sunhelp.org'" <sparcbook at sunhelp.org>
> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:49:51 -0600 
> Subject: [SPARCbook] passwd cracking
> Reply-To: sparcbook at sunhelp.org
> 
> I have a 3000 XT that I have to determine the root passwd for; employee left
> without leaving passwd.

> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 3
> From: "Ken Hansen" <n2vip at bellatlantic.net>
> To: <sparcbook at sunhelp.org>
> Subject: Re: [SPARCbook] passwd cracking
> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:44:47 -0500
> Reply-To: sparcbook at sunhelp.org
> 
> Try a supported OS, like Solaris 2.6???
> 
> Is this the nature of the password? Have you tried the HD in another
> SPARCbook?
> 
> What, exactly does the password protect?

	The root password protects the root user account.
> 
> Message: 5
> From: "Ken Hansen" <n2vip at bellatlantic.net>
> Or, are we simply talking about a root password/user password issue? I am
> confused now...

> 
> Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 07:55:27 -0500
> Reply-To: sparcbook at sunhelp.org
> Not that I would run Solaris 8 on 64 Megs RAM and a 110 Mhz Sun4m CPU...

  With all of the performance improvements in Solaris 8 over Solaris 7
(like "cyclical page cache", etc...), what are you basing this public
statement upon? As well as looking at the lowest supported sun4m
machines... i.e. SparcClassic a MicroSPARC 50 (The first-generation
MicroSPARCs are notoriously slow) which maxed out at 96MB of ram.

> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 09:08:08 -0600
> From: The Archimage <archimage at linux-magic.com>
> To: sparcbook at sunhelp.org
> Subject: Re: [SPARCbook] passwd cracking
> Reply-To: sparcbook at sunhelp.org
> 
> My understanding is that 2.7 patches are available from Tadpole -- at
> the low, low cost of only $350.
> 
> I personally think that's a crock.  Heck, we bought the (3GX) machines
> for $400, most of us, as hobbyists/students.  I wish Tadpole would
> recognize that, and make the patches available for old machines for
> free.
> 

  I probably cannot afford the $350 any more than you could. But this kind
of reasoning is getting ridiculous. Why should Tadpole adjust their
pricing on something that has not been EOL'd just because you bought an
expensive product at a cheap price from what fairly well amounts to a big
garage sale?


 -david