[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150814134351.GA26772@openwall.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:43:51 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: auditing our use of FMT_* flags (was: more robustness)
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 09:12:51PM +0800, Kai Zhao wrote:
> Are the comments ok ?
>
> static struct fmt_tests tests[] = {
> +/*
> + * The following two test vectors: "USER" and "service" are case-insensitive
> + */
> {"$V$9AYXUd5LfDy-aj48Vj54P-----", "USER"},
> {"$V$p1UQjRZKulr-Z25g5lJ-------", "service"},
> +/*
> + * The following one test vectors: "President#44" is case-sensitive, so this
> + * format should set FMT_CASE
> + */
> {"$V$S44zI913bBx-UJrcFSC------D", "President#44"},
> {NULL}
> };
Mostly yes, but the setting of FMT_CASE isn't because of the test
vectors - it is because the format in fact supports case-sensitive
passwords with some of its supported hashes. Even if we omitted that
one test vector, we would still need to set FMT_CASE. As such, the
comment is slightly misleading. So I think you need 3 separate
comments (with only two of them being about the test vectors), not two.
Also, s/one test vectors/one test vector/
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.
