[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 22:20:55 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: FMT_SPLIT_UNIFIES_CASE
On 18 Mar, 2013, at 22:09 , Claudio André <claudioandre.br@...il.com> wrote:
> Em 18-03-2013 15:05, magnum escreveu:
>>>
>>> Hi, if you are having problems looking at previous patches (above), i attach a new one (easier to deal but might harder to follow/understand).
>>>
>>> commit (7ac5b370) and i'm not sure if it is the right thing to do.
>> Do you mean the FMT_SPLIT_UNIFIES_CASE? That flag should be set if (and only if) your format has a split() that returns the ciphertext with case unified (to lower or upper, I think we normally use lower). So the raw format with hex encoding could/should unify case while the Cisco version must not do that (since it would ruin the base64).
>>
>> The reason for unifying is so John can recognize that a hex hash of DEAD3137CAFE is cracked even though the pot file has it as dead3137cafe.
>>
>> magnum
>
> Magnum, I'm not using it inside Cisco, only on raw. In order to understand why I have doubts, take a look at the attached file. All of them have a proper split().
>
> Ok, I know, my name is also in the list.
Ouch, I think I wrote several of those. I really thought I had them right. Also, I thought I had reviewed most formats not long ago for this kind of bugs - I must have screwed that review up royally. This must be fixed in unstable before Jumbo-8.
magnum
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.
