Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 13:39:39 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Problem with john.conf

On 2015-04-04 13:13, Kai Zhao wrote:
> Hi,
> There was a bug with john.conf when we add '?' before "List.Rules***", and
> it was closed by #1121:
> 
> https://github.com/magnumripper/JohnTheRipper/pull/1121
> 
> But I think it should be discussed.There are two cases, both add '?' before
> "List.Rules"
> 
> config_1
> ------------
> 
> # Default Loopback mode rules.
> [?List.Rules:Loopback]
> .include [List.Rules:NT]
> .include [List.Rules:Split]
> # For Single Mode against fast hashes
> [List.Rules:Single-Extra]
> 
> config_2
> ------------
> 
> # Default Loopback mode rules.
> [?List.Rules:Loopback]
> # For Single Mode against fast hashes
> [List.Rules:Single-Extra]
> 
> Currently, john does not report error when the section name is
> "?List.Rules***"
> Is it valid with the name "?List.Rules***" ? Should john report error
> message
> when the section likes "?List.Rules***" ?

http://www.openwall.com/lists/john-users/2015/04/04/1 should be refered
to as well.

A name of "?List" is not an error, it's just not parsed as a list. Solar
pointed out an inconsistency we have with .include sections now. Maybe
the problem is that #1121 made John silently ignore a situation instead
of bailing out with an error?

magnum

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

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