[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP118ACCD61846941988617FBFDEB0@phx.gbl>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 01:21:49 +0100
From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Format name changes
On 03/20/2013 11:53 PM, Frank Dittrich wrote:
> On 03/20/2013 11:17 PM, magnum wrote:
>> We should fix benchmark-unify accordingly (and there may be more needed in that one).
>
> I'll have a look at the differences compared to jumbo-7 and adjust
> benchmark-unify, but not right now (probably tomorrow).
I compared jumbo-7 and unstable-jumbo, but not for GPU formats.
(I'll have to to that on bull.)
Already taken care of in benchmark-unify:
< dynamic_38 dynamic_38: sha1($s.sha1($s.($p))) (Wolt3BB)
> dynamic_38 dynamic_38: sha1($s.sha1($s.sha1($p))) (Wolt3BB)
< odf ODF SHA-1 Blowfish
> odf ODF SHA-1 Blowfish / SHA-256 AES
< office Office 2007/2010 SHA-1/AES
> office Office 2007/2010 (SHA-1) / 2013 (SHA-512), with AES
< pdf PDF MD5 RC4
> pdf PDF MD5 SHA-2 RC4 / AES
Should some of these, e.g., the "2013 (SHA-512)" be moved into a
separate format, even if the implementation remains in the same source file?
Is it really right to map "Office 2007/2010 SHA-1/AES" to "Office
2007/2010 (SHA-1) / 2013 (SHA-512), with AES"?
Format names that differ and haven't been addressed in benchmark-unify:
< mozilla Mozilla SHA-1 3DES
> mozilla Mozilla (key3.db) SHA-1 3DES
These formats have been added after jumbo-7 was released:
-#define FORMAT_NAME "SXC SHA-1 Blowfish"
+#define FORMAT_NAME "Staroffice SXC SHA-1 Blowfish"
-#define FORMAT_NAME "pfx"
+#define FORMAT_NAME "PKCS12 (.pfx, .p12)"
Should I map the old names to the new ones anyway?
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.
