[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 05:01:44 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: m3g9tr0n rules
On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 02:44:38AM +0200, magnum wrote:
> On 09/02/2012 02:19 PM, Solar Designer wrote:
> > >[1-9A-Z] i\0[ -~]
> > o[0-9A-Z][ -~] Q
>
> Would a length check in the second rule not make any difference to
> performance? Well, I assume it wont since you did not include one :)
I included the "Q" instead. A length check might be faster to perform,
yes, but it won't affect what candidate passwords are generated.
> Also, in Jumbo we have the ->N rule reject. Using that should help
> performance, eg:
>
> ->[1-9A-Z] >\0 i\0[ -~]
> ->[0-9A-Z] o\0[ -~] Q
Yes, thanks. I forgot that we had it. BTW, I am not happy that its
definition is a bit inconsistent with the similarly looking rule
command. The reject flag:
->N reject this rule unless length N or longer is supported
The command:
>N reject the word unless it is greater than N characters long
Notice how it is "length N or longer" in one case and strictly "greater
than N" in the other. I agree that "length N or longer" may be more
appropriate for practical use of the reject flag, though.
Maybe I should use a character other than ">" when merging this feature
into core. Any suggestions?
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.
