Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:45:54 +0200
From: Frank Dittrich <>
Subject: Re: automation equipped working place of hash cracker,

On 04/13/2012 06:14 PM, Aleksey Cherepanov wrote:
> Could you imagine common interface for all multiple and single computer with
> local or/and remote access? Assume that we already have abstract cracking
> device that hides such technical details. So we have one or more persons
> interacting with this device while it handles all dirty work like
> distribution. Also assume that among all persons we have one which really
> "push buttons" while others just suggest what to do. So there are only one
> real person and one real computer.
> I mean that if we hide technical details than we have only one case: one
> person with one computer. And there probably is optimal work flow for that
> person. For other cases it varies a bit. But we could (try to) make real
> interface (in software) that hides technical differences. And I think that is
> what I intend to do.
> It seems to be too general and hard to do. So we stick only to optimal work
> flow and do interface supporting only that. Is it rational? Or maybe it would
> be harder than to develop general abstraction and employ it to support our
> optimal work flow, wouldn't it?

While this decision has to be made at some point before actual coding
starts, I believe it is necessary to evaluate what could be gained by
trying to automatically search for new patterns and automatically adjust
the search strategy vs. supporting a common interface which lets you
treat various resources as a single "cracking device", but lacking
support for adjusting the strategy automatically.


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.