john-dev - NSLDAPS or SSHA or Salted-SHA1

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150813180347.GA20775@openwall.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 21:03:47 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: NSLDAPS or SSHA or Salted-SHA1

magnum, Sayantan -

We have this historical format name Salted-SHA1, which I think we should
get rid of in favor of either NSLDAPS (consistent with NSLDAP, and IIRC
we also had an NSLDAPS format before?) or SSHA (consistent with SSHA512).

Here are the relevant formats:

[solar@...er src]$ fgrep -il nsldap *.c
nsldap_fmt_plug.c
opencl_nsldap_fmt_plug.c
opencl_nsldaps_fmt_plug.c
opencl_salted_sha_fmt_plug.c
salted_sha1_fmt_plug.c
ssha512_fmt_plug.c
[solar@...er src]$ fgrep -wl SSHA *.c
opencl_nsldaps_fmt_plug.c
opencl_salted_sha_fmt_plug.c
salted_sha1_fmt_plug.c

So we currently have two OpenCL formats for the same(?) thing -
opencl_nsldaps_fmt_plug.c and opencl_salted_sha_fmt_plug.c.  Perhaps we
should only keep the latter code (since it's newer and more elaborate),
but rename it to the former's filename and format name?  And perhaps we
should do the same for salted_sha1_fmt_plug.c.

Then, why is opencl_salted_sha_fmt_plug.c GPL'ed?  Sayantan, did you use
any GPL'ed code when making it?  What code?

Let's figure this out and clean it up.

Thanks,

Alexander

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.