Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:47:20 -0500 From: JimF <jfoug@....net> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: NSLDAPS or SSHA or Salted-SHA1 This is already a git issue. https://github.com/magnumripper/JohnTheRipper/issues/1613 I am adding Solar's email to that issue. On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:03:47 -0500, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote: > magnum, Sayantan - > > We have this historical format name Salted-SHA1, which I think we should > get rid of in favor of either NSLDAPS (consistent with NSLDAP, and IIRC > we also had an NSLDAPS format before?) or SSHA (consistent with SSHA512). > > Here are the relevant formats: > > [solar@...er src]$ fgrep -il nsldap *.c > nsldap_fmt_plug.c > opencl_nsldap_fmt_plug.c > opencl_nsldaps_fmt_plug.c > opencl_salted_sha_fmt_plug.c > salted_sha1_fmt_plug.c > ssha512_fmt_plug.c > [solar@...er src]$ fgrep -wl SSHA *.c > opencl_nsldaps_fmt_plug.c > opencl_salted_sha_fmt_plug.c > salted_sha1_fmt_plug.c > > So we currently have two OpenCL formats for the same(?) thing - > opencl_nsldaps_fmt_plug.c and opencl_salted_sha_fmt_plug.c. Perhaps we > should only keep the latter code (since it's newer and more elaborate), > but rename it to the former's filename and format name? And perhaps we > should do the same for salted_sha1_fmt_plug.c. > > Then, why is opencl_salted_sha_fmt_plug.c GPL'ed? Sayantan, did you use > any GPL'ed code when making it? What code? > > Let's figure this out and clean it up. > > Thanks, > > 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.