Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am looking at connecting in a reasonably secured way mobiles to an enterprise WiFi network. The current solutions would be user certificates on the mobiles (they are unfortunately exportable) or PEAP-MS-CHAP-v2.

PEAP-MS-CHAP-v2 is vulnerable to offline bruteforce attacks, I am therefore trying to estimate the required entropy of passwords in three scenarios:

  • pure bruteforce attack
  • psychologically-clever bruteforce (which assumes as a start that people will probably use a capital letter at the beginning and end up with a digit - if there two are enforced)
  • reasonable dictionnary attacks (of the form "if there is a 20 chars passphrase, it will likely be made up of 4 or 5 words")

All this coupled with current average CPU/GPU capabilities when performing the attack.

Has anyone seen a realistic estimation of the required complexity? I use the word realistic because this is an enterprise network so 20 characters with 3 digits, two capitals and 3 symbols will not be cheered with joy (people need to work, in addition to entering their passwords :))

There are many places which compute raw estimates, usually for generic bruteforce. Have you seen anything which takes into account some of the aspects above?


share|improve this question

MS-CHAPv2 is now completely broken (see

The complexity of recovering the NTLM hash can be reduced to that of brute-force cracking a DES encryption key, which means that the complexity of the password is now irrelevant (as long as you are only interested in the NTLM hash and not the password itself - and in most cases, you would be; the hash is everything that is needed to authenticate with MS-CHAPv2, recover derived MPPE session keys etc).

tl;dr: Cracking a recorded MS-CHAPv2 challenge/response pair is now absolutely feasible. If security is of any concern to you, use something else.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.