Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 01:33:51 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: [patch] optional new raw sha1 implemetation On 2012-06-17 01:30, magnum wrote: > On 2012-06-17 01:28, magnum wrote: >> On 2012-06-17 01:25, Tavis Ormandy wrote: >>> Regarding switching memrchr to strrchr, I dont think this is correct, >>> they are strings on input, but I store them in a format that can be >>> converted to SHA-1 input very quickly and there is no guarantee there >>> is a nul byte at the end. >> >> Yes but we search for 0x80 and this *will* be present. I see no problem, >> and it works just fine. > > Oh, I see what you mean now. You are probably right we should change this. On a third thought, are we not actually guaranteed there will be a zero byte? They are zeroed in set_key(). 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.