[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5011CA0F.3010902@mccme.ru>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 02:51:59 +0400
From: Alexander Cherepanov <cherepan@...me.ru>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: mscash2 / hmac-md5 ambiguity
On 2012-07-26 02:39, Frank Dittrich wrote:
> On 07/26/2012 12:17 AM, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>> On 2012-07-24 01:36, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>>> For now I see the following:
>>>
>>> canonical is accepted as
>>>
>> BTW which formats are for the same type of hashes? For example, nt and
>> nt2 are for the same hashes. But what about raw-md5 and dynamic_0?
>> phpass and dynamic_17? etc.
>
> You could check the test cases of the format's self test.
> If these are the same formats, they usually also have the same self
> tests (exception would be a test which would fail because one
> implementation supports a smaller maximum password length.
Thanks for an idea.
> (For dynamic_10NN, the test cases are in the config file dynamic.conf.)
>
> BTW: Some formats which currently collide with other formats could get a
> changed canonical representation. At least those which av an individual
> conversion script or routine:
>
> $ ls -l *2john*
Any canonical form which differs from a form ITW can theoretically be
corrected.
> These formats could still support the old format. But the sequence of
> format registration might need to be changed in case they grab hashes
> which are the canonical form of another format.
>
> But that is certainly stuff to be checked after the contest.
Sure.
--
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.
