Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:39:37 +0100 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Formats ssh and ssh-ng On 24 Jan, 2013, at 17:08 , Dhiru Kholia <dhiru.kholia@...il.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Frank Dittrich > <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> wrote: >> Can't ssh-ng report "SSH RSA / DSA" instead of "ssh-ng SSH RSA / DSA"? >> This would allow to pick the fastest of several benchmarks for >> performance comparison in relbench. >> (Of course, the format name should only be changed if both formats >> understand the same canonical hash representation and if ssh-ng doesn't >> produce false positives.) > > ssh-ng *might* produce false positives (but it hasn't so far!) and > making ssh-ng understand old-style hashes requires more work (i.e. > patches welcome). > > Hence, for now, it is better to treat them as separate formats. They should be separate formats in Jumbo, but I agree with Frank they could still be "one" format in relbench. magnum (marketing dept.)
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.