|
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.