[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EBC4736.9000309@hushmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:50:46 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: jumbo rebased on current CVS
2011-11-10 20:23, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 01:03:09AM +0100, magnum wrote:
>> I have a perfectly working jumbo + all incremental patches, rebased
>> on current CVS and with all salt_hash functions revised - no
>> problems with that so far.
>
> Did you run that one through the test suite? The new DES key setup has
> separate little pieces of code per key bit, and I'm afraid I never
> actually tested it on LM hash passwords with 8th bit set in any
> character. Does the test suite have such samples (I guess so)? I'd
> appreciate your help in testing this, preferably with multiple make
> targets (there are three assembly implementations and several variations
> of the C implementation).
It completes the test suite without a glitch. But now that you mention
this, I'll do some manual testing as well. I also need to verify that LM
uppercasing of "encodings" works correctly after the rebase - this is
still missing in the Test Suite.
> I think the test suite doesn't directly support non-jumbo, which is why
> I am asking this in jumbo context.
Jim put some magic in to detect when testing a non-Jumbo - it will be
handled properly. For a non-Jumbo, I believe the latest published
version of the Test Suite is fine (for jumbo, it is not fully updated
yet for md5_gen -> dynamic).
magnum
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.
