Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 01:18:49 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: dmg2john

I have reproduced Jeremiah's problems and I am running 64-bit. Even when using size_t or ULL, I get the two last blobs all-zero. I believe we are looking at a different issue now - the initial one is fixed.

Jeremiah, what was that you wrote about @jmgosney? Did he see this? Was that with a version of this code or some other?

magnum


On 30 Jan, 2013, at 1:12 , Milen Rangelov <gat3way@...il.com> wrote:

> Sorry my mistake, long would be 64-bit on x86_64. That's rather strange, only explanation would be it was run on a x86 host.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 2:03 AM, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
> On x86_64, long int is 64-bit in Linux as well as OSX. The same goes for GPU by the way. But I should have made it long long anyway. It was just meant as a quick fix/test and I knew Jermeiah was using 64-bit. 
> 
> magnum
> 
> 
> On 30 Jan, 2013, at 0:45 , Milen Rangelov <gat3way@...il.com> wrote:
> 
>> uint64_t I meant. I don't know if C99 stdint.h stuff is acceptable for jtr though, but it really helps in situations like that. But definitely long is 32-bit int on both x86 and x86_64. Also the compiler likes to do some implicit casts, I would never trust it to do that even if unsigned long long was used. Better thing is assign that to a variable that is definitely 64-bit int, then use it. 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Milen Rangelov <gat3way@...il.com> wrote:
>> I think you should declare an uint64, do the calculations, then pass it to print_hex. Also long is not long long, result would likely not be what you expected.
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:42 AM, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
>> On 29 Jan, 2013, at 23:15 , magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 29 Jan, 2013, at 22:37 , magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 29 Jan, 2013, at 2:04 , Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 01:28:57AM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
>> >>> I chose to post a different patch in response to Jeremiah's message on
>> >>> john-users.  That's because there's also a printf format string that
>> >>> uses "%d", and cno and data_size are also of type int in dmg_fmt_plug.c.
>> >>>
>> >>> The patch that I posted should be good for up to 8 TB.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I sent a patch to Jeremiah for trying out. It just adds this (to be used with Solar's patch as well):
>> >
>> > @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static void hash_plugin_parse_hash(char *filename)
>> >               printf("*%d*", header2.encrypted_keyblob_size);
>> >               print_hex(header2.encrypted_keyblob, header2.encrypted_keyblob_size);
>> >               printf("*%d*%d*", cno, data_size);
>> > -             print_hex(chunk + cno * 4096, data_size);
>> > +             print_hex(chunk + (long)cno * 4096, data_size);
>> >               printf("*1*");
>> >               print_hex(chunk, 4096);
>> >               printf("\n");
>> >
>> > This works for me, except the output is mostly zeros and John can't crack it. Maybe that is the other bug mentioned that I see now?
>> 
>> Unfortunately he got the same mostly zero output with the real file. I give up here.
>> 
>> magnum
>> 
>> 
> 
> 


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

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