[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <op.x3bk46l5zz6j51@1pqhgq1.dtn.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:47:20 -0500
From: JimF <jfoug@....net>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: NSLDAPS or SSHA or Salted-SHA1
This is already a git issue.
https://github.com/magnumripper/JohnTheRipper/issues/1613 I am adding
Solar's email to that issue.
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:03:47 -0500, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
wrote:
> 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
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.
