Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:59:05 +0800
From: myrice <>
Subject: Re: int crypt_all(count, salt)

Solar -

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Solar Designer <> wrote:
> myrice -
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:52:03PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
>> This is an intermediate step before even further changes to it.  (The
>> next change to crypt_all() will likely be to make "int *count" - that
>> is, let crypt_all() modify the count when it computes more hashes than
>> there were keys, due to set_mask().  Yes, set_mask() is to be introduced
>> at the same time with that change.)
> As discussed on IRC yesterday, attached is a patch that implements "int
> *count", but not set_mask() yet.  As discussed, for your initial
> experiments you may hard-code generation of candidate passwords in your
> hack of raw-md5-opencl - e.g., append [a-z][a-z] to all passwords -
> which should be good enough for test runs and for us to see how to
> enhance the interface further.
> ..
> I've attached two files implementing the same changes:
> john- - relative to the
> patches I posted before (applies on top of tree patched with
> john- along with all previous patches).
> john- - applies on top of clean
> as found in CVS.
> Alexander

I doubt this code in fmt_self_test_body, here is the diff part:

-		if (format->methods.crypt_all(index + 1, NULL) != index + 1)
-			return "crypt_all";
+		{
+			int count = index + 1;
+			if (format->methods.crypt_all(&count, NULL) != count)
+				return "crypt_all";
+		}

We could change count in crypt_all and the return "matched count" may
not the the same with the count passed in. So could we change != count
to != index+1?


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.