Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 18:21:14 +0200
From: Frank Dittrich <>
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."

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
Otherwise, it might still be necessary to use ./john --status=test.2.


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.