Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 21:37:53 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Bit slice implementation of DES based hashes

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:50:20PM +0530, piyush mittal wrote:
> According to the paper what I understood is as follows but it can be wrong
> as well..
> 
> 0th bit of  block will go to the 0th bit of word.
> 0th bit of key will go to 0th bit of word.
> 11th bit of block will go to the 0th bit of 11th word
> 11th bit of key will go to the 0th bit of 11th word.
...
> 0th bit of 2nd block will go to the 2nd bit of first word
> 0th  bit of 2nd key will go to the 2nd bit of first word.
> 11th bit of 2nd block will go to the 2nd bit of 11th word
> 11th bit of 2nd key will go to the 2nd bit of 11th word

OK, this is mostly right (except for the minor issue with 0-based vs.
1-based numbering in these examples).

Given this understanding, do you see why your piece of code where you
were putting entire octets from plain_salt_mix[] into elements of B[]
was obviously wrong?

Also, do you understand why the get_hash() functions process a few
initial elements of B[] only?

Alexander

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ