[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <003201ccecfc$d95c7290$8c1557b0$@net>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:46:40 -0600
From: "jfoug" <jfoug@....net>
To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: RE: Was: RE: [john-users] sha1 + hex salt
Here is another 'way' to write that 16 byte crypt. This shows a 7 byte and
a 8 byte password.
[List.Generic:dynamic_2202]
Expression=SHA1($p.$s) [16-byte nulled SHA1]
Flag=MGF_SALTED
Flag=MGF_SHA1_40_BYTE_FINISH
Func=DynamicFunc__clean_input
Func=DynamicFunc__append_keys
Func=DynamicFunc__append_salt
Func=DynamicFunc__SHA1_crypt_input1_to_output1_FINAL
Test=$dynamic_2202$20c59472b34ec4b9678b7149d519a2338bc31ba9$HEX$000000000000
0000:92086390
Test=$dynamic_2202$ec21221f0ebdb1e3e2b19726ce6aa13f0b2748e6$HEX$000000000000
000000:9208639
However, for some reason, when I run using this one, I have to 'force' the
format using -form=dynamic_2202
The $HEX$ may be causing this 'force'. It should not, but right now, it
appears to require that parameter for some reason.
So, for salt, salt2, and user name, we CAN do hex values, in the existing
john. I had totally forgotten about adding this last spring.
Jim.
>From: jfoug
>
><!light!>
>
>I had totally forgotten about $HEX$
>
>I have to dig back through the dox and code, and try to remember just
>what
>we did with this flag within the strings. This may be what is needed,
>and
>an extra flag is something extraneous, and not required.
>
>Jim.
>
>>From: magnum
>>
>>My vote would be for hex. I have never seen the \xnn format in any
>>native hashes. I would guess a native escaped salt would more likely be
>>using URL type escaping - like %3A for the colon. But hex would be the
>>better start anyway.
>>
>>magnum
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.
