john-users - Re: ssha cpu format

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 14:12:34 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: ssha cpu format

On 21 Apr, 2013, at 13:37 , magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 Apr, 2013, at 1:56 , Rich Rumble <richrumble@...il.com> wrote:
>> None of these load for me (even if drop the {xxx} )
>> username:{SSHA}WTT3B9Jjr8gOt0Q7WMs9/XvukyhTQj0Ns0jMKQ==
>> username:{SHA}cMiB1KJphN3OeV9vcYF8nPRIDnk=:::::::
>> datkommadr:{SSHA}f4VgVNep4cz7Vy1BgPbmelC/N6+rYdWw7WGuLA==
>> dabob:{SSHA}sa0QU3f7p7CPpMSA3st/N9Hjjlq1in7MiIbAWw==
>> bob:{SSHA}Yio7m8PrVuK4apWV4l0TqCjbeHlvLVN6
>> data:{SHA}S0QPkjhGaP3VAe6oPukLMTh3zMmqIOJ1LlU9g==:::data
>> -rich
> 
> That's strange. Here, the four {SSHA} hashes loads and cracks by the salted-sha1 format. One of the {SHA} hashes (the first) loads and cracks by the nsldap format, the other one is rejected. I'll look into why.

The last one is too long and it's not even correct Base64 (incorrect padding, I think). It does not seem to be a valid hash.

magnum