Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 12:11:10 +0200 From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: wrapper around john to track attacks and sync files On 05/09/2012 10:49 AM, Aleksey Cherepanov wrote: > At the moment I have wrapper that only wraps john but do not do > anything. I implemented it using Perl because it is a nice language > for such tasks, also it seems that much of the developers here know > it. Is it ok to use Perl? Or should I use C for that? And what > language should be used for final version (if it is different from > language for draft implementation)? For the draft implementation, perl is absolutely OK. For the final version, I am not so sure. Perl is still better than many other alternatives, but might not be available on all clients. Especially for Windows clients this might be a problem. Several scripts in the jumbo version already require perl. (There are even scripts in other languages, but I think Alexander tries to get rid of additional dependencies and prefers perl.) But these scripts are not really required to use john. So, IMO, a final version implemented in C would be preferable. For anything on the server side, you are probably free to choose the language, if if is not too exotic. > As the first step I tried IPC::Run module but under it john did not > accept input. I think it is because john needs controlling terminal to > accept input. So I switched to IO::Pty that do the job. As I > understand IO::Pty should work on windows but only under cygwin. Is it > ok to limit windows support to only cygwin? Or is native windows > support desirable? Unless the effort supporting native Windows clients is much higher, I'd like to support the majority of client platforms with as little additional installation effort as possible, Frank
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.