[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <94dde2cd2b67310a90f5545bf436d7a7@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 12:32:04 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: New self-test for maximum length
On 31 Dec, 2012, at 10:59 , Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> wrote:
> On 12/31/2012 09:25 AM, magnum wrote:
>> On 31 Dec, 2012, at 8:56 , Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> wrote:
>>> What if you enable OMP again, but use OMP_NUM_THREADS=1?
>>
>> That also works fine. Something is not thread-safe.
>>
>> The weirdest thing is that the new self-test triggers the bug. Revert formats.c to fa9e405 and problem completely disappears. I really can't see why. That self-test calls set_key() with maximum length keys followed by get_key(), nothing else.
>
> But if you revert this, you'll just hide the bug (as you certainly know).
> Once you get such long passwords in a real cracking session, you'll most
> likely run into the same issues.
Yes, probably. A few other formats actually got problems from the test, that would not occur IRL. They were due to optmizations and triggered because crypt_all() is not called before get_key() (I could call it but do not want to because it slows down GPU formats). sapB and sapG was among them. But Clipperz really should not have problems with it.
And no, we won't revert this self test for sure!
magnum
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.
