Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:48:14 +0100 From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Formats ssh and ssh-ng On 01/24/2013 08:06 PM, magnum wrote: > I had a look at check_padding_3des() that verifies the result. It's hard to calculate a probability. The padding check might give false *negatives* unless there always is padding present even for blocks that happened to be aligned. But it looks to me it would be a pretty freaking unreal coincidence if it ever made a false positive. If you ask me (but you shouldn't), we could remove the FMT_NOT_EXACT flag. Is that "false negatives" as in "john might fail to recognize that a candidate matches the hash"? This would be really bad. ssh-ng would need to be orders of magnitude faster than ssh to be useful despite such a problem. IMHO, it would be unfair to compare the performance of a format which might miss candidates with the performance of a format which doesn't. Also, these 2 comments don't look like inspiring confidence: if(pad > 16) /* FIXME: is this check valid? */ // "Bad padding byte. You probably have a wrong password" return -1; and /* FIXME: now this integer has to be big, is this always true? */ Frank
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.