[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D7D7A49.1090004@bredband.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 03:15:37 +0100
From: magnum <rawsmooth@...dband.net>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: starting and 'running' the md5-gen format
On 03/13/2011 09:48 PM, JimF wrote:
> I have been making some signficant changes to the md5-gen format. It has
> been noted that the current 'syntax' is diffcult to write (due to shell
> quoting), and may be confusing in the near future, as more hash types
> get added to it (such as SHA1, which will be added soon). This post is
> to hear from users. To find out what format syntax would like best for
> of this multi-format format.
Actually I'm not very uncomfortable with keeping the unintuitive "md5"
names and ignore the inconsistence, it's just that I feel if you are
*ever* gonna change it, now is *really* the time.
Personally I wouldn't protest if you just rename the lot and stop
supporting old tags and names. But that's just me, I'm the big bang type.
Otherwise you could switch to using gen(xx) for signatures (and
john.conf names & functions, which you did not mention), but parse
md5_gen(xx) as meaning the same. I think that would be reasonable though
maybe not beautiful in the code.
That is, *use* the right side but *allow* the left side:
--format=md5-gen(12) == --format=gen_12
user:md5_gen(0)hhaasshh: == user:gen(0)hhaasshh:
MD5GenBaseFunc__crypt == GenBaseFunc__crypt
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.
