[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 01:15:34 +0200
From: magnum <rawsmooth@...dband.net>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: KoreLogic rules
2010-10-08 22:45, Minga Minga wrote:
> I can explain this. For our jobs, we need to crack as many password as
> possible. One method of doing this, is to pick a single wordlist, and
> then running multiple 'john' processes each with a different --rules:
> setting. It is assumed that _all_ of the "KoreLogicRules" will eventually
> be run. So if you are running a "complex" rule, it is assumed that you are
> also running a "simpler" rule on another machine/core. I have shell scripts
> (That I'm about to share) that does all this work for you.
This reminds me of an enhancement request I thought of: Either allow
multiple --rules arguments, or have some sort of #include statements in
rules. Actually both have pros and cons depending on situation. If I had
that include statement, I'd make a superset including most every weird
rule I have (like all KoreLogic rules) for very fast ciphers or very
small wordlists, and smaller supersets for use with slow ciphers.
Another example, the last 20 rules of the default List.Rules.Single are
commented out. If they instead had their own section of
[List.Rules.SingleExtra], we could include them either by giving
multiple arguments "-ru:single,singleextra" or if you went with the
include format, by having the SingleExtra rule including Single:
[List.Rules:SingleExtra]
:include Single
# Insert/overstrike some characters...
!?A >[1-6] l i\0[a-z]
...
The actual syntax would probably need to be something else than :include
of course.
Just a thought
magnum
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.
