Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:44:43 -0500 From: "jfoug" <jfoug@....net> To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: RE: Reduced binary size >From: magnum [mailto:john.magnum@...hmail.com] >> One other 'way' to do this, is to pass in the index to get_source(). >> This method 'may' allow us to rebuild, AFTER the crypt_all has been >> run. There may be issues where this method is not ideal, and may not >be 'good enough' >> for many formats. > >Not sure what you mean. If the index was sent (meaning we are calling get_source for the 17th password), and this call comes after the crypt_all, then the format can use the completed hash, to re-create the binary hash value. This situation MAY end up being one where we cannot have both get_source() and partial binary. NOTE the side effects and other bad stuff we ran into with SHA1_LI format. It was partial. When I wrote get_source(), I DID list certain assertions / requirements for it to be able to be used. The SHA1_LI broke those requirements, and we were able to work around some of it, but trying to do this in more of a wholesale manner (true partial binaries), may be more than we can work around. 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.