[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:22:02 +0530
From: Sayantan Datta <std2048@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: descrypt-opencl "section 0" fix
On 10/29/13, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> Sayantan, magnum -
>
> descrypt-opencl was failing to crack some of the hashes the correct
> candidate passwords for which appeared in indices 0 to 31. In a test
> using pw-fake-unix and password.lst, 17 passwords among the first 32
> were not cracked. All of these 17 had unique salts - that is, there
> were no other loaded hashes with the same salts. Then I came up with a
> simpler test case, using this one hash:
>
> VTb0BiUKhqhjU
>
> (corresponds to 123456) and a wordlist containing repeats of these two
> lines:
>
> 123456
> 12345
>
> With up to 32 lines (16 repetitions) in the wordlist file, the password
> was not cracked. With 33 lines (one 123456 added to the end of the
> file), the password was cracked.
>
> A section 0 cracked password initially results in cmp_out[i] = 1, but
> after cmp_out[i]-- this turns into 0, so max stays at 0 and the
> successful guess is not detected.
>
> The attached patch attempts to and appears to correct this. At least my
> tests pass now. Note that while I am patching both instances of the
> code, I think I have tested only one of them.
>
> Alexander
>
Thank you. This issue was probably fixed in bleeding-mask branch.
Actually I did a lot more testing with bleeding-mask than
bleeding-jumbo. I must have forgotten to push all bug fixes to jumbo
as well. Anyway I'll re-test bleeding-mask for this issue.
Regards,
Sayantan
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.
