Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:10:47 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Format name changes

On 21 Mar, 2013, at 1:21 , Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> wrote:
> Already taken care of in benchmark-unify:
> 
> < dynamic_38    dynamic_38: sha1($s.sha1($s.($p))) (Wolt3BB)
>> dynamic_38    dynamic_38: sha1($s.sha1($s.sha1($p))) (Wolt3BB)
> 
> < odf   ODF SHA-1 Blowfish
>> odf   ODF SHA-1 Blowfish / SHA-256 AES
> 
> < office        Office 2007/2010 SHA-1/AES
>> office        Office 2007/2010 (SHA-1) / 2013 (SHA-512), with AES
> 
> < pdf   PDF MD5 RC4
>> pdf   PDF MD5 SHA-2 RC4 / AES
> 
> 
> Should some of these, e.g., the "2013 (SHA-512)" be moved into a
> separate format, even if the implementation remains in the same source file?
> Is it really right to map "Office 2007/2010 SHA-1/AES" to "Office
> 2007/2010 (SHA-1) / 2013 (SHA-512), with AES"?

Right now they should be mapped, I think. If formats becomes separate later, we can take care of it then, right?

> These formats have been added after jumbo-7 was released:
> 
> -#define FORMAT_NAME         "SXC SHA-1 Blowfish"
> +#define FORMAT_NAME         "Staroffice SXC SHA-1 Blowfish"
> 
> -#define FORMAT_NAME         "pfx"
> +#define FORMAT_NAME         "PKCS12 (.pfx, .p12)"
> 
> Should I map the old names to the new ones anyway?

I don't think so.

Thanks,
magnum

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

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