I have recently dumped some hashes from my local machine because I'm trying to understand the process in which Windows 7 hashes it's passwords.

I have discovered my local password hash that looks (similar) to this: Jason:502:aad3c435b514a4eeaad3b935b51304fe:c46b9e588fa0d112de6f59fd6d58eae3:::

Now what I would like to know is what the different sections mean, so:

We have this hash: Jason:502:aad3c435b514a4eeaad3b935b51304fe:c46b9e588fa0d112de6f59fd6d58eae3::: that looks to be separated by : if we separate this by the : we end up with this:

[Jason, :, 502, :, aad3c435b514a4eeaad3b935b51304fe, :, c46b9e588fa0d112de6f59fd6d58eae3, :, :, :]
  • I'm assuming the first part Jason is the username, that's the most logical to me.
  • The third part aad3c435b514a4eeaad3b935b51304fe is the ntlm hash would be my best guess.

If my assumption is correct then that leaves c46b9e588fa0d112de6f59fd6d58eae3 and 502 left.

  • I'd guess that the other hash (c46b9e588fa0d112de6f59fd6d58eae3) is the derived key, that is created from the password itself.
  • The 502 would be the binary data of the user.
  • And the : is just a separator or a padding.

Now for my question, am I correct in my assumptions on what each part of the hash represents? If not can someone please explain to me what each part represents?


1 Answer 1



[Jason, :, 502, :, aad3c435b514a4eeaad3b935b51304fe, :, c46b9e588fa0d112de6f59fd6d58eae3, :, :, :] 

as the example

  • Jason is the user name

  • 502 is the relative identifier (500 is an administrator, 502 here is a kerberos account.) (adsecurity.org/?p=483)

  • aad3c435b514a4eeaad3b935b51304f is the LM hash

  • c46b9e588fa0d112de6f59fd6d58eae3 is the NT hash

Details on difference between the hashes can be found here: LM / NT Hashes

  • So that would make this entire hash the NTLM hash, correct?
    – 13aal
    Commented Jun 13, 2017 at 15:45
  • 1
    What do you mean by "this entire hash"? The NTLM hash is only the string c46b9e588fa0d112de6f59fd6d58eae3 as @iain explained.
    – PwdRsch
    Commented Jun 13, 2017 at 15:51
  • Why is there an NTLM & LM hash. I thought NTLM hash superceded an LM hash as it was not secure?
    – rusty009
    Commented Apr 2, 2018 at 18:38
  • 2
    I can see @13aal's confusion. If there's a more secure hashing algorithm to LM being utilised on a system (NTLM), then why still implement LM hashes instead of completely replacing it with the newer, more secure one? Why maim the security benefits of a stronger hash algorithm by including it alongside a weaker one that can be used to easily compromise the system anyway? Commented Oct 12, 2018 at 23:49
  • 1
    Adding to this, even though it's a long time since it was opened. The link that ~@iainpb posted explains it all. link The LM hash is stored for backward compatibility reasons. Many environments no longer need it and can disable storage of that value. In my experience, the LM hash is always disabled on newer versions of Windows.
    – Chris S
    Commented Aug 21, 2019 at 4:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .