Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:10:42 +0100 From: Vlatko Kosturjak <kost@...ux.hr> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Cisco - Password type 4 - SHA256 On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 07:18:31PM +0100, magnum wrote: > On 18 Mar, 2013, at 16:34 , Vlatko Kosturjak <kost@...ux.hr> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:08:17AM -0300, Claudio André wrote: > >> Hi, if you are having problems looking at previous patches (above), i > >> attach a new one (easier to deal but might harder to follow/understand). > >> > >> Notice: it contains part of commit (7ac5b370) and i'm not sure if it is > >> the right thin > > > > I thought we gave up of this solution of having separate format? > I think we only gave up the idea to add a completely separate new format. The version Claudio posted now adds Cisco support to existing raw-sha256-opencl source file, so only a few functions differs and there are two format structs. While it is technically a separate format, it's not a new source file (and I presume it uses the same OpenCL kernel too). > > Just thinking out loud, I wonder how hard it would be to write a single format (as in using *one* format struct) that reads hex or base64 hashes, and writes pot file entries in the format they came - while still recognizing cracked hashes from the "other" encoding. Maybe it would just get messy. I'm asking because I see there is also decode in his code and we're also decoding it in script. I thought only limits and international characters are relevant. BR, -- Vlatko Kosturjak - KoSt
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.