Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:11:49 +0100 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: bcrypt-opencl On 2015-03-10 15:49, Sayantan Datta wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:18 PM, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote: > >> - in December 2014, Jim ripped common code from bcrypt and >> bcrypt-opencl, and placed in BF_common.h & BF_common_plug.c. At that >> point and up until today, the opencl would "accept" $2y$ but it's >> unclear to me if it did so 100% correctly. > > Why ? Did the CPU and the openCL version show different behavior ? Not to my knowledge, and it may be that all was fine. It's just that I do not think Jim actually added any support to the OpenCL format (in case that was needed), I think he just had them share valid/binary/salt. Actually, I'm considering re-applying Jim's patch. But possibly re-write it in a way that doesn't confuse Git as much as it did. So maybe you shouldn't bother with this any more than helping me understand the *practical* differences between the four tags in the OpenCL format. valid() is simple. We should just accept all four variants. In salt(), the CPU format currently has this: if (ciphertext == 'a' || ciphertext == 'b') salt.subtype = 'y'; else salt.subtype = ciphertext; return &salt; Will that be correct? 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.