Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 18:39:28 +0300 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Fuzzing Report on hashes On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 11:29:29AM -0400, jfoug@....net wrote: > > ---- Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote: > > Thanks! I see that Jim fixed the former, and declared the latter > > invalid (sorry I didn't look into it closer). Thanks, Jim! > > I did not add N to the valid() within django scrypt. We might want to look at that. A hash with N > 32 (>=32?) will always fail. With my SIMD code, yes. Anyway, N=32 corresponds to 512 GB with r=1, and more with higher r (typical r is 8), so most systems will fail at some lower N values as well. > It is that way now, but I do not know if that is also the case using the other scrypt code. I did not add the valid check now, but with the change if that one line input file (with the N=41) is run, then john will appear to be doing work, BUT no passwords are ever checked. However, the format will run really fast, lol. Yes, which is why I opted to exit on first such error in scrypt_fmt.c. Alexander
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.