[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <088b0d5ac63315f7cffda9a07f9b7384@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 19:25:24 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Busted OpenCL formats
On 8 Aug, 2013, at 17:25 , Sayantan Datta <std2048@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:42 PM, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure why this happens in bleeding though - the mask mode is not committed yet so how can index ever be > loaded_count?
>
> I think during status checks, the call to get_key has index = 0 and max_keys_per_crypt. While it is easy to detect index = max_keys_per_crypt , but for 0 it gets confused whether 0 is for cracked password or just for a status check. It is possible to detect 0 for status check based on the fact that if nothing is cracked it must be the status check.
> But if something gets cracked and simultaneously we press status check it will get confused.
What does it matter whether it's a status check or a cracked password? Why would you want to act differently?
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.
