[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110827203058.GA5189@eee>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 00:30:59 +0400
From: Aleksey Cherepanov <aleksey.4erepanov@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: .include "other_rule_group" (a wish list item)
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 03:55:09PM -0500, jfoug wrote:
> Patch 0002 to jumbo-6rc1 is another enhancement from the wish list. This
> change will allow a rules section to add an include line, that will pull in
> another rules section.
Am I right when think that it is like to run John with the first rule
and then to run John with the second rule (that would be pulled in)?
Maybe it would be better to run this using key like: -rules:ruleA,ruleB .
I could imagine that it could be generalized to two operations on
rules: append and combine.
For instance we have two rules:
[List.Rule:ruleA]
A
[List.Rule:ruleB]
B
where A and B are some rules.
So ruleB appended to ruleA would look like
A
B
And ruleB combined with ruleA would look like
A B
The last case could be achieved now using John in such way:
john -ru:ruleA ... -stdout >t
john -ru:ruleB -w:t ...
However really it would give following combination:
A M B
where M is a memorization rule command.
Maybe this could be done with key too: -ru:(ruleA+ruleB)*ruleC
where + is used to append rule and * to combine rules. However such
syntax needs quoting for shell that is problem like with braces quoting
with md5_gen(n) format.
Regards,
Aleksey Cherepanov
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.
