[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50107CB7.4050205@mccme.ru>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 03:09:43 +0400
From: Alexander Cherepanov <cherepan@...me.ru>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: mscash2 / hmac-md5 ambiguity
On 2012-07-24 03:57, magnum wrote:
> On 2012-07-23 23:19, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>> On 2012-07-23 14:46, magnum wrote:
>>> On 2012-07-23 11:47, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>>>> mscash2 hashes in their canonical form are nevertheless accepted as
>>>> hmac-md5:
>>>>
>>>> $ cat mscash2.john
>>>> chatelain:$DCC2$10240#chatelain#e4e15fdfafc8e715da9edec3611bfbff
>>>> $ john mscash2.john
>>>> Warning: detected hash type "mscash2", but the string is also recognized
>>>> as "hmac-md5"
>>>> Use the "--format=hmac-md5" option to force loading these as that type
>>>> instead
>>>> Loaded 1 password hash (M$ Cache Hash 2 (DCC2) PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA-1
>>>> [128/128 SSE2 intrinsics 8x])
>>>> guesses: 0 time: 0:00:00:02 0.00% (2) c/s: 339 trying: 123456 -
>>>> abc123
>>>> Session aborted
>>>> $ john --format=hmac-md5 mscash2.john
>>>> Loaded 1 password hash (HMAC MD5 [128/128 SSE2 intrinsics 12x])
>>>> guesses: 0 time: 0:00:00:02 0.00% (3) c/s: 1120K trying: 123man -
>>>> 123mah
>>>> Session aborted
>>>>
>>>> IMHO that's not very good.
>>>
>>> It was much worse until we forced hmac-md5 to lower precedence than
>>> mscash. Now it is just cosmetic. That hash *is* a valid hmac-md5 hash,
>>> with a salt of "$DCC2$10240#chatelain".
>>
>> Were these forms chosen for compatibility with other tools? I mean it's
>> a pity to have a special, canonical form for a hash which clashes with
>> other formats.
>
> It does not really clash, it just warns. It picks mscash2, emits the
> notice and all is fine. Is it that bad? I loved when core got this feature.
Problem is not in the warning itself. The warning is helpful. The
problem is what it warns about.
Suppose that Korelogic will include hmac-md5 in the upcoming contest.
Then you cannot load these hashes without --format.
Second problem: you cannot put both types of hashes in one file.
Wouldn't it be better to have only one file with all hashes? I mean, to
have one file instead of 20 is very convenient. Then you can select
desirable part of it with --format. But this is impossible when there
are collisions in canonical forms of given types of hashes.
>>> We can stop this by
>>> black-listing certain format salts. That's OK with me but in some way
>>> it's a flawed path.
>>
>> Agreed.
>
> Just thinking out loud here: Let's say we could teach the hmac-MD5
> format that "it" should not emit that warning if the salt starts with
> $DCC2$10240# - as opposed to always reject it in valid(). In the
> (unlikely) case this was really a hmac salt, we could still use the hmac
> format using --format. If we don't, it will pick mscash2 and not
> complain. The only problem with this approach is it's not supported by
> the current core and I'm not sure how we could implement that... or...
> perhaps hmac-md5's valid() could take a peek at options.format (the
> --format argument) and behave differently if unset... maybe this is
> possible. I might try that some time.
You mean to just silence the warning? I don't think it should be done
without solving underlying problem.
--
Alexander 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.
