Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 21:11:54 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Cisco - Password type 4 - SHA256 On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 10:15:50PM +0530, Dhiru Kholia wrote: > It is 25. I have fixed my code. Is the password truncated after this length? Have we considered adding the proper logic into valid() and binary() of the raw SHA-256 format instead of adding a whole new format for these hashes? They're only different in the way the hashes are encoded. About the only reason to make this a separate format is the truncation at length 25, which we may want to support. However, maybe it'd be cleaner to have a second struct fmt_main with its own valid() and binary() and PLAINTEXT_LENGTH in the raw SHA-256 format instead of a whole new format file? That way, any optimizations will be shared, etc. With two entirely separate format files, we have code duplication and/or one of the formats may be lagging behind the other in terms of optimizations. Alexander
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.