Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:12:57 -0500 From: "jfoug" <jfoug@....net> To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: RE: Reduced binary size >From: magnum [mailto:john.magnum@...hmail.com] >> >> 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. > >That would save us from looping through the crypt_key array but we still >can't know if it's a false positive (partial collision). Point taken. No, it would do no good at all, to use the computed crypt to later check the computed crypt to see if an exact match was found. >BTW I'm still using the repairing variant of LI format despite its >shortcomings. I wonder how much we'd need to hack core to make it behave >better. What exactly were the side effects? If it was that simply the -list was failing, then just use -form=dynamic_26, or -form=raw-sha1 on the show command line. I really think the rebuild is the correct way to go. The hashes are CORRECT in the .pot file. The other way, you end up with garbage. They list themselves as dyna_26, but are broken. 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.