Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:48:14 +0100
From: Frank Dittrich <>
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;


/* FIXME: now this integer has to be big, is this always true? */


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.