Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 13:39:39 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Problem with john.conf On 2015-04-04 13:13, Kai Zhao wrote: > Hi, > There was a bug with john.conf when we add '?' before "List.Rules***", and > it was closed by #1121: > > https://github.com/magnumripper/JohnTheRipper/pull/1121 > > But I think it should be discussed.There are two cases, both add '?' before > "List.Rules" > > config_1 > ------------ > > # Default Loopback mode rules. > [?List.Rules:Loopback] > .include [List.Rules:NT] > .include [List.Rules:Split] > # For Single Mode against fast hashes > [List.Rules:Single-Extra] > > config_2 > ------------ > > # Default Loopback mode rules. > [?List.Rules:Loopback] > # For Single Mode against fast hashes > [List.Rules:Single-Extra] > > Currently, john does not report error when the section name is > "?List.Rules***" > Is it valid with the name "?List.Rules***" ? Should john report error > message > when the section likes "?List.Rules***" ? http://www.openwall.com/lists/john-users/2015/04/04/1 should be refered to as well. A name of "?List" is not an error, it's just not parsed as a list. Solar pointed out an inconsistency we have with .include sections now. Maybe the problem is that #1121 made John silently ignore a situation instead of bailing out with an error? 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.