[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5B876B10F13A49FA8179798585BED2DC@D9VGLK61>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:51:42 -0500
From: "JimF" <jfoug@....net>
To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: md5_gen(17)
It is not only valid. It is also that prepare gets that pointer to the
format structure. In a true polymorphic like md5_gen, you do not have the
data required all the time, only at certain points.
Now, I do copy the 'extra' data needed for the specific format into a global
within the format. So it 'can' be accessed later, and this 'would' be
available in the split function. So in hindsite, split 'could' be used, if
it was acceptable to spend more time on valid with extra complexity, along
with the complexity added to split. However, the same extra complexity put
into split, if done in prepare, and the changes are done. No extra work (or
chance of problems) in the valid function.
Jim.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Solar Designer" <solar@...nwall.com>
To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [john-dev] md5_gen(17)
> Jim -
>
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 05:23:21PM -0500, JFoug wrote:
>> I can do split, the then there has to be logic placed in numerous places.
>> prepare FIXES the ciphertext string, thus there are no additional changes
>> needed, such as salt parsing, bin parsing, etc.
>
> Right after sending my message, I recalled about valid() also needing
> changes if we do this in split(). OK, I am fine with you using prepare().
>
> 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.
