[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8F7327618B8648638C499F18D9AD1FDF@ath64dual>
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 10:21:07 -0500
From: "JFoug" <jfoug@....net>
To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: John 1.7.7-jumbo-5
----- Original Message -----
From: "Solar Designer" <solar@...nwall.com>
> I reviewed the code more closely, and it appears to be a little bit
> trickier than that. Besides the self-tests, loader.c passes binary()'s
> returned pointer directly into binary_hash[]() functions:
I also dug into this. I could remove many of the changes, but some were
much more difficult. Also, in self test, the return from salt is passed
back to the formats unchanged, to the salt_hash. That is another function
that many formats do the typecast to integer size, and lop off the end,
thus, will also require an aligned buffer.
> binary = format->methods.binary(piece);
> pw_hash = db->password_hash_func(binary);
> ...
> binary = format->methods.binary(ciphertext);
> hash = db->password_hash_func(binary);
>
> So we'd need to patch these as well (and it might have slight
> performance impact on the loader), or we need to stay with the changes
> you made in 1.7.7-jumbo-5.
>
> BTW, you patched mschapv2_split() as well - perhaps this was not needed -
> you only needed to patch mschapv2_get_binary(), but not _split().
Once I found the 'pattern' ,when I was working through the formats, I pretty
much did the same for all. If there was a static char[] or static uchar[],
I changed that to a first time through alloc aligned pointer. There may
have been areas which were totally unwarranted.
Jim.
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.
