[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 16:29:05 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: more robustness
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 04:01:14PM +0800, Kai Zhao wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> > So when max_keys_per_crypt is higher than 1, and it usually is, the
> > current self-test would only test one key at a time anyway. This means
> > that computation for other key indices is left untested. This is
> > mitigated by testing multiple key indices like that:
> >
> > /* 0 1 2 3 4 6 9 13 19 28 42 63 94 141 211 316 474 711 1066 ... */
> > if (index >= 2 && max > ntests)
> > index += index >> 1;
> > else
> > index++;
> >
> > but as you can see this does not result in an exhaustive set of indices,
> > and it is very wasteful (e.g., 712 passwords are hashed, most of them
> > uninitialized, to test only one index 711).
>
> I may find a bug as you described. It cracks when there is only 1 password,
> but it fails when there is more then 1 passwords.
>
> Below is the detailed description.
>
> 1. Format = Oracle12C
Thank you, Kai!
Per commits, I think this has already been fixed, correct?
In general, when something had been brought to john-dev, please post a
followup in here when the issue is fixed (or just to announce that a
GitHub issue has been created and discussion is proceeding there). As
it was, your john-dev posting stood like an open issue with no followup.
Alexander
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.
