[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <FAFF6EF7AE384E238B5D550FAE41EF17@ath64dual>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 22:17:54 -0500
From: "JFoug" <jfoug@....net>
To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: prepare() vs. split() (was: [john-users] Cracking Domino hash)
Doesn't split always get call later than valid? If so, you can not adjust
the data item, like you can within prepare. With prepare, you can adjust
the data content sent TO the valid function. Thus, it allows for allowing
legacy type formats to still 'work', or an easy way for things like raw
hashes to work, without having to make complex code in valid, or in the
get_binary, or other 'conversion' functions.
Can that be done in split? I did not think so, but I have not used it too
much.
Jim.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Solar Designer" <solar@...nwall.com>
> magnum, Jim -
>
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 02:50:26AM +0200, magnum wrote:
>> For some reason you need to put parens around the hash:
>>
>> $ echo >blah.txt 'user:(Gl2g1LxkORRxxrTHqrY6)'
>>
>> I'm not sure why it's made like this but we could make the format add
>> them itself if not present, in the prepare() function.
>
> Please don't over-use prepare(). I think what you propose is better
> done in split(), like we'd do it before we introduced prepare().
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.
