Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:10:47 +0100 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Format name changes On 21 Mar, 2013, at 1:21 , Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> wrote: > Already taken care of in benchmark-unify: > > < dynamic_38 dynamic_38: sha1($s.sha1($s.($p))) (Wolt3BB) >> dynamic_38 dynamic_38: sha1($s.sha1($s.sha1($p))) (Wolt3BB) > > < odf ODF SHA-1 Blowfish >> odf ODF SHA-1 Blowfish / SHA-256 AES > > < office Office 2007/2010 SHA-1/AES >> office Office 2007/2010 (SHA-1) / 2013 (SHA-512), with AES > > < pdf PDF MD5 RC4 >> pdf PDF MD5 SHA-2 RC4 / AES > > > Should some of these, e.g., the "2013 (SHA-512)" be moved into a > separate format, even if the implementation remains in the same source file? > Is it really right to map "Office 2007/2010 SHA-1/AES" to "Office > 2007/2010 (SHA-1) / 2013 (SHA-512), with AES"? Right now they should be mapped, I think. If formats becomes separate later, we can take care of it then, right? > These formats have been added after jumbo-7 was released: > > -#define FORMAT_NAME "SXC SHA-1 Blowfish" > +#define FORMAT_NAME "Staroffice SXC SHA-1 Blowfish" > > -#define FORMAT_NAME "pfx" > +#define FORMAT_NAME "PKCS12 (.pfx, .p12)" > > Should I map the old names to the new ones anyway? I don't think so. Thanks, magnum
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.