Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 10:49:39 +0800
From: Kai Zhao <loverszhao@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: more robustness

I created a patch to implement the --fuzz option, and it was not finished.
The patch is attached.

The core method is formats.c::fuzz_test()

void fuzz_test(struct fmt_main *format)
{
  ...
  current = format->params.tests;
  while (1) {
    if (!fcp) {
      fcp = create_fuzz_cases(format->params.label, current->ciphertext);
      fcp_copy = fcp;
  }

  current->ciphertext = fcp->ctext;
  current->fields[0] = "?";
  current->fields[1] = current->ciphertext;
  ciphertext = format->methods.prepare(current->fields, format);
  if (ciphertext)
    format->methods.valid(ciphertext, format);

  fcp = fcp->next;
  if (!fcp) {
    free_fuzz_cases(fcp_copy);
    if (!(++current)->ciphertext)
      break;
  }
}

The fuzz_test() only test the prepare() and valid() functions.
The fuzz_test() is borrowed from loader.c::ldr_split_line(), but fuzz_test()
is much simple.

Is there anything wrong with this patch?

There are something to be done for --fuzz option, I will do the follow
things
if the logic of this patch is all right.

1. Add more fuzzing methods
2. Support formats whose ciphertext is very long such as LUKS
3. Add the split() after valid()


Thanks,

Kai

[ CONTENT OF TYPE text/html SKIPPED ]

[ CONTENT OF TYPE application/octet-stream SKIPPED ]

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

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