[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <94bde147737bab8172af1ed081c0d7cf@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:12:33 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: relbench/benchmark-unify
On 19 Aug, 2013, at 21:07 , Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> wrote:
> Is that right, that these are different formats (meaning we have a GPU
> implementation without a CPU implementation):
>
> ssha-opencl, Netscape LDAP {SSHA} [SHA1 OpenCL (inefficient, development
> use mostly)]
> nsldap, Netscape LDAP {SHA} [SHA1 128/128 AVX 4x]
>
> (The test vectors seem to indicate they really differ. I wasn't aware of
> formats without a CPU implementation.)
The salted-sha1 format supports the LDAP {SSHA} hashes. Ideally we should rename salted-sha1 to ssha. I think I am to blame for this, I should have kept the ssha name when I merged the two formats years ago.
nsldap is similar but unsalted.
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.
