Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:52:36 -0500 From: "jfoug" <jfoug@....net> To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: RE: For some dynamic formats on linux-x86-mmx build cracking depends on password candidate sequence This gives me much more to go on, thank you for the research. I do not see this happening at all, but I will dig into it. I have started making changes for this. I will be adding the clear_keys function to dynamic, and stop using the index==0 as an indication on when to clear the keyspace. That was not put into jumbo, since I am not 100% sure I have worked everything out with it. But this does appear to be something along the lines of improper key cleaning. I just wonder why you were not seeing any failures when the pw file was not in reversed order? Jim. >From: Frank Dittrich Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 4:33 PM > >On 06/29/2012 01:33 PM, Frank Dittrich wrote: >> limiey (u48-dynamic_2) >> hhello__1 (u170-dynamic_2) >> summer__3 (u293-dynamic_2) >> utle t__1 (u407-dynamic_2) > >$ grep -n "^limiey$" pw.dic pw.dic.orig >pw.dic:5761:limiey >pw.dic.orig:58:limiey > >$ grep -n "^hhello__1$" pw.dic pw.dic.orig >pw.dic:5633:hhello__1 >pw.dic.orig:186:hhello__1 > >$ LC_ALL=C grep -n "^.*utle.*t__1$" pw.dic pw.dic.orig |grep -v ":o" >pw.dic:5377: utle t__1 >pw.dic.orig:442: utle t__1 > >This can't be just a coincidence. >These 4 (previously uncracked) passwords are located at these offsets in >the (reversed) pw.dic: > >5761 = 45 * 128 + 1 >5633 = 44 * 128 + 1 >5505 = 43 * 128 + 1 >5377 = 42 * 128 + 1 > >128 happens to be MAX_KEYS_PER_CRYPT for my linux-x86-mmx build. Big clip, but very useful information.
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.