john-users - Re: jumbo patch for 1.7.3.1

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:10:08 +0200
From: Simon Marechal <simon@...quise.net>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: jumbo patch for 1.7.3.1

Solar Designer a écrit :
> I know there's still plenty of stuff to consider and maybe merge from
> Simon Marechal's "myjohn".  Simon - would you be so kind to submit it as
> patches against 1.7.3.1-all-2 (or whatever will be latest at the time)?
> 
> When submitting patches, please pay attention to these guidelines:
> 
> 	http://openwall.info/wiki/how-to-make-patches

The reason why i keep "my" tree public is that it's too tedious to 
produce clean patches, due to all the specific tweaks only I use. 
However, if you only want specific parts I could produce a proper patch.

Currently, here are the differences between my stuff and the jumbo patch 
I know of:
* probably less stable
* less ciphers supported, only tested with x86, x64 linux
* markov-chains based password generator, and associated utilities
* usage of the SSE functions when they are available
* a shortcut for the netlm cipher (part of the original LM hash could be 
bruteforced. It could be possible to crack it almost as fast as the 
original LM hash)
* an optimized "old lotus" implementation for x86
* some tweaks which i find useful, such as printing the lines that have 
not been found when doing -show

I believe that the most useful thing that I have and that is not part of 
the jumbo patch is the markov generator, which is more effective than 
-inc (for my usage, and especially for slow ciphers) and let you 
manually but easily distribute work.

So, what would you consider worth inclusion ?

-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail john-users-unsubscribe@...ts.openwall.com and reply
to the automated confirmation request that will be sent to you.