[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130316171154.GA31418@openwall.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 21:11:54 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Cisco - Password type 4 - SHA256
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 10:15:50PM +0530, Dhiru Kholia wrote:
> It is 25. I have fixed my code.
Is the password truncated after this length?
Have we considered adding the proper logic into valid() and binary() of
the raw SHA-256 format instead of adding a whole new format for these
hashes? They're only different in the way the hashes are encoded.
About the only reason to make this a separate format is the truncation
at length 25, which we may want to support. However, maybe it'd be
cleaner to have a second struct fmt_main with its own valid() and
binary() and PLAINTEXT_LENGTH in the raw SHA-256 format instead of a
whole new format file? That way, any optimizations will be shared, etc.
With two entirely separate format files, we have code duplication and/or
one of the formats may be lagging behind the other in terms of
optimizations.
Alexander
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.
