[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <048101cd6071$d7a6b490$86f41db0$@net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:03:51 -0500
From: "jfoug" <jfoug@....net>
To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: RE: request for new dynamic subformats
I was able to add sha384/sha512 into dynamic in a couple of hours. I added many new formats. I move the dyna_39 (which is sha256($s.$p)) and now call it dyna_61.
Dyna_50's are for sha224, Dyna_60's for sha256, dyna_70's for sha384 and dyna_80's for sha512.
Here are the 'currently' allocated dyna's for SHA2 crypts:
Benchmarking: dynamic_50: sha224($p) [32/32 128x1 (MD5_Body)]... DONE
Benchmarking: dynamic_51: sha224($s.$p) [32/32 128x1 (MD5_Body)]... DONE
Benchmarking: dynamic_52: sha224($p.$s) [32/32 128x1 (MD5_Body)]... DONE
Benchmarking: dynamic_60: sha256($p) [32/32 128x1 (MD5_Body)]... DONE
Benchmarking: dynamic_61: sha256($s.$p) [32/32 128x1 (MD5_Body)]... DONE
Benchmarking: dynamic_62: sha256($p.$s) [32/32 128x1 (MD5_Body)]... DONE
Benchmarking: dynamic_70: sha384($p) [32/32 128x1 (MD5_Body)]... DONE
Benchmarking: dynamic_71: sha384($s.$p) [32/32 128x1 (MD5_Body)]... DONE
Benchmarking: dynamic_72: sha384($p.$s) [32/32 128x1 (MD5_Body)]... DONE
Benchmarking: dynamic_80: sha512($p) [32/32 128x1 (MD5_Body)]... DONE
Benchmarking: dynamic_81: sha512($s.$p) [32/32 128x1 (MD5_Body)]... DONE
Benchmarking: dynamic_82: sha512($p.$s) [32/32 128x1 (MD5_Body)]... DONE
Again, I have to 'fix' the MD5_Body part, it will be done by the time I release. I also have all of these formats in pass_gen.pl, and also in the TS. All tests in the TS pass just fine.
I will get this SHA2 stuff wrapped up, get the proper patches made and uploaded to git. NOTE, these are only for magnum-jumbo, and magnum-bleeding. These are NOT going to be put into the upcoming Jumbo-7, since it does not contain the sha2.c code.
Jim.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: jfoug@....net [mailto:jfoug@....net]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:42 PM
>To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
>Subject: RE: [john-dev] request for new dynamic subformats
>
>Put about 2 hours into dynamic, and about 20 minutes into pass_gen.pl,
>and have this (bleeding only):
>
>from sha2.c (32 bit build)
>$ ../run/john -test=5 -form=dynamic_39
>Benchmarking: dynamic_39: sha256($s.$p) [32/32 128x1 (MD5_Body)]... DONE
>Many salts: 1638K c/s real, 1592K c/s virtual
>Only one salt: 1590K c/s real, 1508K c/s virtual
>
>and built against oSSL
>$ ../run/john -test=5 -form=dynamic_39
>Benchmarking: dynamic_39: sha256($s.$p) [32/32 128x1 (MD5_Body)]... DONE
>Many salts: 1910K c/s real, 1948K c/s virtual
>Only one salt: 1804K c/s real, 1835K c/s virtual
>
>
>Should be able to do everything the 'existing' dynamic can do, but now
>can also use SHA224 and SHA256, and not just SHA1
>
>Added 3 new flags:
>
>MGF_SHA256_64_BYTE_FINISH (note will detect 56 byte hex-hashes and
>switch to sha224 mode)
>MGF_GET_SOURCE_SHA224
>MGF_GET_SOURCE_SHA256
>
>and added 8 dynamic functions. Right now, I only have sha256
>'interface', and it switches over to sha224 if valid detects this is a
>56 byte hash. Probably NOT the best way to proceed, but what do you
>expect in 2 hours of coding ;) It is just a start, but should be pretty
>functional.
>
>Likely, I i will add sha224 functions, and add the input flag. That
>way, they could be used interchangably.
>
>NOTE, these functions have not been written with any SSE in them (since
>we do not have SSE). However, if these are used for ANYTHING other than
>sha224(string) or sha256(string), then there would be no way to do SSE
>anyway. With 56 byte hex hashes for sha224 and 64 for sha256, it blows
>SSE out of the water.
>
>It is NOT in magnum-jumbo bleeding 'yet', but should get there soon. I
>will probably build the sha224 interface before uploading, and I see a
>nit in the display (MD5_Body) should not be shown, since it is not USING
>MD5_Body functions.
>
>Jim
>
>---- jfoug <jfoug@....net> wrote:
>> NOTE, sha256/224 ARE on my wish-list, as soon to be added,
>>>
>>> From: Elijah [W&P] [mailto:smarteam.support@...il.com]
>>> What can be be popular now is sha256($salt.$pass) and extra points
>for the salt to be "regenable" (00-99)
>>> http://forum.insidepro.com/viewtopic.php?p=99119#99119
>>> This one is believed to be related with recent fоrmspring "incident"
>
>NOTE, now that this is in dynamic format, I can also do a 'regen-salt'
>for this one :)
>
>Jim.
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.
