[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55ef91d5113cb62289d2dbd10a5feb7c@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:59:17 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: wpapsk format hash function weirdness
On 2015-08-14 14:53, Solar Designer wrote:
> Lukas, Jim, magnum -
>
> Can you explain why we're using seemingly inconsistent sets of hash
> functions in wpapsk_fmt_plug.c:
>
> {
> binary_hash_0,
> fmt_default_binary_hash_1,
> fmt_default_binary_hash_2,
> fmt_default_binary_hash_3,
> fmt_default_binary_hash_4,
> fmt_default_binary_hash_5,
> fmt_default_binary_hash_6
> },
>
> along with
>
> {
> get_hash_0,
> get_hash_1,
> get_hash_2,
> get_hash_3,
> get_hash_4,
> get_hash_5,
> get_hash_6
> },
>
> If this isn't a bug, then I suggest that we add a comment explaining it.
Please note the difference between fmt_default_binary_hash (a stub) and
fmt_default_binary_hash_x (real functions, used in a lot of formats).
Maybe we should name it something better, like shared_binary_hash_x...
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.
