[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP2919FC5F944951872C8F67FFD140@phx.gbl>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:33:30 +0100
From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Formats ssh and ssh-ng
On 01/24/2013 05:08 PM, Dhiru Kholia wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Frank Dittrich
>> This would allow to pick the fastest of several benchmarks for
>> performance comparison in relbench.
>> (Of course, the format name should only be changed if both formats
>> understand the same canonical hash representation and if ssh-ng doesn't
>> produce false positives.)
>
> ssh-ng *might* produce false positives (but it hasn't so far!) and
> making ssh-ng understand old-style hashes requires more work (i.e.
> patches welcome).
>
> Hence, for now, it is better to treat them as separate formats.
But once ssh-ng makes sure it doesn't produce false positives anymore,
it will still be much faster (except when the ratio of password
candidates to correct passwords is close to 1), right?
If so, at some point in the future, the old ssh format can be dropped
(or moved to unused), and ssh-ng will become the new ssh, right?
Frank
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.
