[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 01:48:20 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: LM & NT prepare() segfaults
Jim -
With 0037-dynamic-split-addition-1.diff prepare() is now called not only
for password files to crack, but also for pot entries. (I don't know
what you're doing this for, but that's another matter.) This exposed
the fact that implementations of prepare() just assume that their
expected number of fields is available. Specifically, LM's and NT's
prepare() look for fields beyond the 2nd. I've just introduced the
obvious non-NULL checks into these two.
What about the first two fields, though - should prepare() assume that
these are always present? Should loader.c be careful to only call
prepare() when at least two fields are present? Does it ensure that
currently (I haven't checked)?
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
