[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAnLoW=F+=6BoVCsurv9CmZYVj7OSGVTyFFNv15O08f0wZi+Sw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:06:11 +0200
From: Camille Mougey <commial@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Benchmark format error
2012/8/28 Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 02:14:37PM +0200, Camille Mougey wrote:
> > You're right. Here the details :
> > $john --test --format=myformat
> > Benchmarking: (...)[32/32]... FAILED (get_hash[2](0))
>
> Most of the time get_hash*() failures indicate that hashing was not done
> properly in crypt_all(), but given the additional info you've provided
> and that it's only get_hash[2] that failed (meaning that [0] and [1]
> have matched, which is not very likely to occur by accident, although
> it's possible), I think you actually have a bug in your binary_hash_2()
> or/and get_hash_2() (maybe in higher-numbered hash functions as well).
>
To my mind, I use "common" binary_hash and get_hash function, that is to
say I just mask with 0xff, fff, ...
> > Loaded 1 password hash (...)
> > itsmeaning (?)
> > guesses: 1 .... etc.
>
> When you're only cracking one hash, the hash functions are not used.
> You may want to generate a thousand of (different) test hashes (or mix
> your one test hash with a thousand of fake hashes) and see if cracking
> still works (chances are that it won't).
>
Indeed, it doesn't still work. Surprisingly, the hash is cracked when it is
with nine others, and still non guessed (but detected) with hundred or
thousand others.
However, the only function able to compute the hash part is crypt_all.
What's happened ?
> I hope this helps.
>
> Alexander
>
Camille
Content of type "text/html" skipped
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.
