Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 10:00:35 +0100
From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: dynamic_2000 - dynamic_2014

On 01/07/2014 03:22 PM, jfoug wrote:
> On 1/7/2014 2:44: Frank Dittrich wrote
>> It doesn't have to stop at accepting the hashes of other dynamic formats.
>>
>> Format dynamic_33 could also accept $NT$ hashes.
> 
> This is very hard here. In this case, we almost need to have an array of function pointers.  I CERTAINLY am not going to replicate a bunch of valid() methods from other formats.  Wow, that is a bad idea.

You are the expert here, so I'll have to trust your judgment.
(I am certainly not going to mess with the dynamic implementation.)

I didn't see much difference between allowing prefixes
$dynamic_2014$ and $dynamic_14$ for format dynamic_2014 and allowing
$dynamic_33$ and $NT$ for dynamic_33.
OK, $NT$ doesn't have the word "dynamic" in it.
But otherwise: Except the prefix, dynamic_33 and NT hashes look exactly
the same.
So I didn't see any need to call NT's valid() function from within
dynamic...

The only difference to your implementation idea is this:
Instead of

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).

You'll have

1. the actual prefix string for the format.
2. an 'optional' array of prefixes which also can be processed by this
format.
3. the canonical prefix (i.e. prefix that gets written to the .pot file).

So instead of numbers (integers), you work with strings.
Doesn't sound too complicated to me.

Frank

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

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