Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:52:36 -0500
From: "jfoug" <>
To: <>
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?


>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$" pw.dic pw.dic.orig
>$ grep -n "^hhello__1$" pw.dic pw.dic.orig
>$ 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

Your e-mail address:

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.