[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b04286aee44ce9883fb0c84a618677e9@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:18:31 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Cisco - Password type 4 - SHA256
On 18 Mar, 2013, at 16:34 , Vlatko Kosturjak <kost@...ux.hr> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:08:17AM -0300, Claudio André wrote:
>> Hi, if you are having problems looking at previous patches (above), i
>> attach a new one (easier to deal but might harder to follow/understand).
>>
>> Notice: it contains part of commit (7ac5b370) and i'm not sure if it is
>> the right thin
>
> I thought we gave up of this solution of having separate format?
>
> BR,
> --
> Vlatko Kosturjak - KoSt
I think we only gave up the idea to add a completely separate new format. The version Claudio posted now adds Cisco support to existing raw-sha256-opencl source file, so only a few functions differs and there are two format structs. While it is technically a separate format, it's not a new source file (and I presume it uses the same OpenCL kernel too).
Just thinking out loud, I wonder how hard it would be to write a single format (as in using *one* format struct) that reads hex or base64 hashes, and writes pot file entries in the format they came - while still recognizing cracked hashes from the "other" encoding. Maybe it would just get messy.
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.
