Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 17:23:21 -0500 From: "JFoug" <jfoug@....net> To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: md5_gen(17) I can do split, the then there has to be logic placed in numerous places. prepare FIXES the ciphertext string, thus there are no additional changes needed, such as salt parsing, bin parsing, etc. In a simple format, I really do no care how people do it. In a format which has arbitrary salts, arbitrary other stuff, multiple binary formats, etc, etc, etc, about the only way to get anything done, other than continuing to write tons of fundamental initialzation code, is to get the 'original' ciphertext into a single specified order format. That is what prepare can do, but split can not. Prepare gets a crack at the text, even prior to valid. It is a fix it one time, and be done with it function. I know you have been pushing for split, and yes it 'can' handle some polymorphism within a format, when you get to a truely polymorphic format, its limitations are very glaring. In md5_gen, there is quite a lot of state data which is NOT available in split. That data is part of the runtime of the format. It has to be accessed. Jim. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Solar Designer" <solar@...nwall.com> To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 4:44 PM Subject: Re: [john-dev] md5_gen(17) > On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 04:36:28PM -0500, JFoug wrote: >> I can 'fix' this up in prepare() in md5_gen. Not a big deal. > > As I had suggested before, shouldn't we stick to using split() for > fixups like this, not prepare()? > > 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.