[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <32f3effa409f4b4f6090ae617e193ca0@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:18:19 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: default_cmp_all
On 10 Apr, 2013, at 20:55 , "jfoug" <jfoug@....net> wrote:
> From: magnum [mailto:john.magnum@...hmail.com]
>> So the new-style bitmaps fully replace cmp_all()? I thought they only
> replace it under certain conditions. I >suggest we do absolutely nothing
> until Solar comments this.
>
> I agree with the wait and see. However, cmp_all is not called in the
> current unstable either (prior to the bitmaps). Look at the code in
> cracker.c
>
> There is an outer if statement, on whether the format is salted or not. If
> not salted, then the else route is taken, and within that block of code,
> cmp_all is never called, and only the bin_hashes and cmp_one/cmp_exact is
> used. I am not fully sold that is the right way, BUT that is how JtR has
> been running forever (for a long time at least).
>
> Like I said, it was news to me, and surprised me some. I thought the code
> always something similar to:
>
> crypt_all();
> if (hash() && cmp_all()) {
> foreach: if (cmp_one() && cmp_exact())
> output found pw
> }
>
> But it is not that way for non-salted.
Are you saying that if I attack 12M MD5 hashes in unstable, we do 1M calls to cmp_one() for each and every crypt_all()? That simply can not be true. I'll have a look!
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.
