[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP10108BB225493A51289D722FDF30@phx.gbl>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 23:20:39 +0200
From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: ./john --test --format=crypt --subformat=BF (usage
problem)
On 06/07/2012 08:29 PM, magnum wrote:
> On 06/07/2012 08:26 PM, magnum wrote:
>> This patch format is fine, however since you're using git: If you
>> produce your future patches with "git format-patch" instead of "git
>> diff", the patch will contain author, commit description etc so I can
>> just apply it (using "git am") and *everything* is set.
>
> Forget about the above, this was exactly what you did! :)
Thanks, I was already starting to wonder how I could get that wrong.
BTW, I noticed you renamed the subformats raw-sha256 and raw-sha512 to
cryptsha256 and crypt512.
Why? So that I can learn how to resolve merge conflicts?
(I'll figure that out, no problem.)
I thought that the "raw" is an attibute of the format (as in "no salts,
no iteration count").
That's why I wanted to name those crypt subformats exactly like the formats.
Otherwise, you'd have to rename --subformat=des to --subformat=cryptdes
and --subformat=md5 to --subformat=cryptmd5 as well.
And I think this would create additional confusion instead of reducing
confusion (which is what I wanted to achieve with renaming those
subformats to raw-sha*).
Frank
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.
