[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:46:17 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: RACF format
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 03:06:06PM +0530, Dhiru Kholia wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> > racf_fmt_plug.c needs a proper valid(), not just a check for $racf$.
>
> This problems exists in lot of my formats. I am secretly waiting for
> Frank to send the patches ;)
Don't wait. Patch.
> Modern RACF versions can use long (14 - 100) passphrases. It would be
> great if someone could post some sample hashes.
I guess you might have better luck if you ask on john-users. You may
also try asking here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/wgtp3/is_it_really_true_that_acf2racf_only_support_8/
When you add support for the newer hash types, I think they should be a
separate format - well, or we'd need Short/Long separation for the
benchmarks like we do for AFS, and then it'd be trickier to use bitslice
DES for the DES-based flavor.
Thanks,
Alexander
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.
