[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8545d0b27a9534b3252f9499ab8acaf5@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:10:47 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Format name changes
On 21 Mar, 2013, at 1:21 , Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> wrote:
> 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"?
Right now they should be mapped, I think. If formats becomes separate later, we can take care of it then, right?
> 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?
I don't think so.
Thanks,
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.
