|
|
Message-ID: <022c01cbd503$b75cc6c0$26165440$@net>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:50:24 -0600
From: "jfoug" <jfoug@....net>
To: <john-users@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: RE: md5_gen(0) broken for ages?
I think this will fix it.
In the rawMD5go_fmt.c in the 'init()' function:
static void rawmd5_init(void)
{
md5_gen_RESET_LINK(&fmt_rawMD5go, Convert(Conv_Buf,
rawmd5_tests[0].ciphertext), "raw-md5");
fmt_rawMD5go.methods.binary = rawmd5_binary;
- fmt_rawMD5go.methods.salt = fmt_default_salt;
+ fmt_rawMD5go.methods.salt = fmt_MD5gen.methods.salt;
}
NOTE, this may still be an issue that I want to 'correct' in the md5-gen
sources. I think this should have been done by default. This may be the
first time a non-salted hash has been 'thin linked' to md5-gen. The
'linkage' should be more transparent, and if non-salted, it should simply
work, by listing the saltlen == 0 when passing in the format structure in
the call to md5_gen_RESET_LINK.
However, the change I listed above, to use the 'salt' method from the
md5_gen format, does get things working, right now. It will cause the
'thin' rawMD5 to run the same speed as the md5_gen(0), and should be same
speed as it was before in the rawMD5 'thick' format. Not only in
benchmarks, but also in real running against large input files.
Jim.
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon [mailto:simon@...quise.net]
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 4:16 AM
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [john-users] md5_gen(0) broken for ages?
On 25/02/2011 03:46, jfoug wrote:
> I am not sure what exactly is your 'problem' here. There should be NO
salts
> For md5_gen(0). It is salt-less 'raw-md5'
This is from my patch that removed raw-md5 and linked it to md5_gen(0).
AFAIK I did the link properly, but as I'm not familiar with the code I
might have failed somewhere. SALT_SIZE is set to 0 ...
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.