Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 09:43:36 +0100 From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: dynamic_2000 - dynamic_2014 On 01/02/2014 02:52 PM, jfoug@....net wrote: > > ---- Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> wrote: >> On 01/02/2014 01:55 PM, jfoug@....net wrote: >>> There are some caveats here (there always are). >> >> We could make dynamic_2002 accept dynamic_2 and dynamic_2002, but use >> dynamic_2 as the canonical representation (which gets written to .pot >> files). > > That would not be a bad way to go. Split it up, giving 3 configuration values. > > 1. the actual dyna number for the format. > 2. an 'optional' array of dyna numbers which also can be processed by this format. > 3. the canonical number (i.e. number that gets written to the .pot file). It doesn't have to stop at accepting the hashes of other dynamic formats. Format dynamic_33 could also accept $NT$ hashes. Currently, it only recognizes the plain hex hashes without any prefix. But NT hashes and dynamic_33 hashes only differ in their prefix. In this case, it might even be good if dynamic_33 would use $NT$ as the default prefix. Also, all the implementations (dynamic_33, nt, nt2) support the same max. password length of 27. At least accepting $NT$ as valid would be an improvement. Instead of dynamic_33 using an $NT$ prefix as the canonical representation, nt and nt2 could also use $dynamic_33$ as a prefix, since dynamic_33 is implemented in C, and not defined in a config file. But my personal preference would be to use $NT$. 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.