Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 18:21:14 +0200 From: Frank Dittrich <frank.dittrich@...lbox.org> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Session names somename.[0-9]+ shouldn't be allowed On 05/06/2015 05:58 PM, Solar Designer wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 12:38:21AM +0200, Frank Dittrich wrote: >> IMHO, restricting the use of session names somename.[0-9]+ that might >> would be the best way to avoid trouble with --fork. > > OK, done: > > "Disallow session names with dots since these clash with those produced by > --fork. Suggested by Frank Dittrich." > > http://cvsweb.openwall.com/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/Owl/packages/john/john/src/options.c.diff?r1=1.39;r2=1.40 You don't even allow --session=test.md5crypt anymore. >> I think such session names should be invalid for --session=, and >> --restore= should not allow resuming if the .rec file contains a -fork= >> line, but no --session= line matching the session name indicated by the >> .rec file name. > > I didn't bother implementing checks on --restore and --status. I think > it's enough to have the check on --session. I thought you would care about people who named their session test.2 prior to the introduction of --fork ;) Will ./john --status=test display the status of the forked processes as well? Otherwise, it might still be necessary to use ./john --status=test.2. 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.