Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:18:25 +0200 From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Endianity in input files On 04/16/2013 11:54 PM, Alexander Cherepanov wrote: > Mainly I thought about cases where fields inside a hash are separated by > a char but lengths are also recorded for some fields. This is redundant, > makes valid more complex and doesn't really simplify get_salt and co. Since we can't easily drop support for the old hash format (except for new formats which haven't been released in a previous jumbo version), these functions will not get simpler by changing the preferred hash representation, at least not in the short run. > Also lengths are sometimes recorded in decimal (dmg, gpg, etc.) and > sometimes in hexadecimal (pkzip). > > Another old idea is to use base64 instead of hex. This will make hashes > 1.5 times shorter. And this shouldn't make decoding harder if special > functions are used. The preferred way of storing a hash also depends on -how the system which uses these hashes is storing / reporting them -what third party tools adopted john's hash representation / support which other representations Frank
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.