[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150719101802.G0NT2.144021.imail@eastrmwml214>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 10:18:02 -0400
From: <jfoug@....net>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: nsldap can be cracked together with raw-sha1
---- Aleksey Cherepanov <lyosha@...nwall.com> wrote:
> I looked into the src/nsldap_fmt_plug.c and I think that nsldap format
> can be cracked together with raw-sha1. The only difference is
> cyphertext encoding: raw-sha1 uses hex while nsldap uses base64 (and
> other tag, obviously).
>
> #define FORMAT_LABEL "nsldap"
> #define FORMAT_NAME "Netscape LDAP {SHA}"
>
> Don't I miss something? Should not these formats be merged?
No, you did not miss anything. They should be merged. And for good reasons. raw-sha1 is faster than nsldap. The key setup is a little different (not sure if better or not). raw-sha1 uses openmp, but the biggest gain is raw-sha1 uses SSEi_REVERSE_STEPS which also gains speed by skipping some work at the end of the hashing step. I see about 10% faster on my wimpy laptop for raw-sha1.
Should not be too hard to do. A change to prepare (possibly split), and it is done. The nsldap format label/name would simply go away however. The nsldap stuff would simply be 'part' of what is handled by raw-sha1.
Proper merging of functions like this would be a pretty good GSoC task, I think, along with identifying possible candidates (there probably are more of them).
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.
