Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 09:43:36 +0100
From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: dynamic_2000 - dynamic_2014

On 01/02/2014 02:52 PM, jfoug@....net wrote:
> 
> ---- Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> wrote: 
>> On 01/02/2014 01:55 PM, jfoug@....net wrote:
>>> There are some caveats here (there always are).
>>
>> We could make dynamic_2002 accept dynamic_2 and dynamic_2002, but use
>> dynamic_2 as the canonical representation (which gets written to .pot
>> files).
> 
> That would not be a bad way to go.  Split it up, giving 3 configuration values.
> 
> 1. the actual dyna number for the format.
> 2. an 'optional' array of dyna numbers which also can be processed by this format.
> 3. the canonical number (i.e. number that gets written to the .pot file).

It doesn't have to stop at accepting the hashes of other dynamic formats.

Format dynamic_33 could also accept $NT$ hashes.
Currently, it only recognizes the plain hex hashes without any prefix.
But NT hashes and dynamic_33 hashes only differ in their prefix.

In this case, it might even be good if dynamic_33 would use $NT$ as the
default prefix.
Also, all the implementations (dynamic_33, nt, nt2) support the same
max. password length of 27.

At least accepting $NT$ as valid would be an improvement.

Instead of dynamic_33 using an $NT$ prefix as the canonical
representation, nt and nt2 could also use $dynamic_33$ as a prefix,
since dynamic_33 is implemented in C, and not defined in a config file.
But my personal preference would be to use $NT$.

Frank

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

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