[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 09:24:10 -0600
From: "jfoug" <jfoug@....net>
To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: RE: post 1.7.8-jumbo-7 changes summary
I have a v3 patch out. It is a combination of the original code, and the new
flag within the format structure 'private' blob.
The original code was needed for a non-specific running (such as -test=0).
The flag is needed for 'specific' running, such as -form=dynamic_29
V3 is a full replacement for v2 (or v1). Unpatch the v2 first, then apply
the v3 patch.
Jim.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: magnum [mailto:john.magnum@...hmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 5:16 PM
>To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
>Subject: Re: [john-dev] post 1.7.8-jumbo-7 changes summary
>
>The original version of the patch segfaulted for me at dynamic_8
>
>The second version has problems with the thin formats:
>
>$ ../run/john -test=0 | grep FAIL
>Benchmarking: PHPS -- md5(md5($pass).$salt) [SSE2 10x4x3 (intr)]...
>FAILED (get_hash[0](0))
>Benchmarking: MediaWiki -- md5($s.'-'.md5($p)) [SSE2 10x4x3 (intr)]...
>FAILED (get_hash[0](0))
>Benchmarking: PHPass MD5 [SSE2 2x4x3 (intr)]... FAILED (get_hash[0](0))
>Benchmarking: Raw MD5 [SSE2 10x4x3 (intr)]... FAILED (get_hash[1](0))
>Benchmarking: md5(unicode($p)) [SSE2 10x4x3 (intr)]... FAILED
>(get_hash[0](0))
>5 out of 104 tests have FAILED
>
>magnum
>
>
>2011-11-08 00:05, jfoug wrote:
>> The original patch had problems. The problem was likely only going to
>be a
>> performance hit, but a performance hit, none the less. Now, it
>properly
>> does init() once, and make sure it DOES do this init(). There is a -
>v2 of
>> the patch. That version is a replacement for the original simple
>patch.
>>
>> Jim.
>>
>>> From: jfoug [mailto:jfoug@....net]
>>>
>>> Note, there is a new 'fix' for dynamic. Under certain situations,
>>> init()
>>> was not functioning. I had logic that did a short circuit of init(),
>if
>>> the
>>> type did not change. I removed that so that init will always be run.
>>>
>>> This showed up in the last format (highest number, i.e. 29), and
>would
>>> happen if the format was being 'forced' to 29. I think it would also
>>> have
>>> happened, if forced to the highest number within the john.conf
>'script'
>>> loaded items also, if that one was force set.
>>>
>>> Jim.
>>
>>
>>
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.
