john-users - Re: no experience but a question before I start

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:28:57 -0500
From: kzug <kzug10@...il.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: no experience but a question before I start

>  I can get in but the records are 256-bit encrypted.
   >> Most likely AES 256. It's going to be fun ...
> I need to try to crack THAT second password but I
> know kind of where to start (so I don't need "as much" of a dictionary
> attack, if that makes sense)
   JtR can generate a dictionary based on rules.  As you already know some of the password, it should make it easier.  Please understand that "easier" is relative. 
  Otherwise, I would seriously consider hypnosis: It can help remembering forgotten pwsd,  as well as onepassword & al. 
  Good luck 


   
On WednesdayNov 14, 2012, at 9:37 PM, ted smackers wrote:

> I looked through the rules documentation for John. What is unclear to me
> is--and as mentioned in the subject, I know nothing about this stuff--if I
> am pretty sure I know part of the password, can the rules be made to
> accommodate that? I know for instance that likely the e's are 3's and that
> it starts with "c" and may contain a specific word as well
> 
> I noticed there are tools listed for cracking email accounts etc. I am not
> yet clear if John is even the right app for me. I have some cloud-based
> records that are in a password-protected site. I can get in but the records
> are 256-bit encrypted. I need to try to crack THAT second password but I
> know kind of where to start (so I don't need "as much" of a dictionary
> attack, if that makes sense). This is stuff related to my divorce, by the
> way so it is quite important. I had too much wine when I last accessed them
> and despite having a hint, which helps, I can't quote get there. Yes, I
> know I am a dumbass. I have learned a lesson here.
> 
> I would really appreciate any advice. I will continue to read about it and
> see if I gain a better understanding.
> 
> Thanks very much.