[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <71dffa300dd6a7c08ade60c68d97f890@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:43:53 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Cracking Office 2013 files with JtR
On 2012-09-10 18:34, Dhiru Kholia wrote:
> - inputBuf = (unsigned char *)malloc(0x14 + 0x04);
> + inputBuf = (unsigned char *)malloc(0x14 + 0x04 + 4);
>
> Some time back, I was thinking of getting rid of these malloc all together.
Yeah, they are small enough they could be stack variables. I'm still
digging around in the code, I may be posting more patches. It's a good
way to get a feel for the code, so I can start writing the OpenCL format :)
> static unsigned char *DeriveKey(unsigned char *hashValue)
> {
> ...
> X1 = (unsigned char *)malloc(20);
> ...
> return X1;
> }
>
> DeriveKey function can be changed so that it writes to a given static
> buffer (Office 2010 and 2013 code path do it this way). No possibility
> of memory leak then.
>
> (3) Same applied for "static unsigned char*
> GeneratePasswordHashUsingSHA1" function.
I guess statics would be problematic for OMP, we need to pass buffer
pointers from the caller here too.
BTW, I just now committed some assertions (well, just warning output) in
case DeriveKey() ends up not returning X1. Could that happen at all? If
not, no harm done. If it *can* happen, we will now rather warn than
segfault :)
I'll also verify all test hashes Rich supplied, or did you do that already?
magnum
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.
