[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120413161424.GB19751@debian>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 20:14:24 +0400
From: Aleksey Cherepanov <aleksey.4erepanov@...il.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: automation equipped working place of hash cracker,
proposal
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 03:11:25PM +0200, Simon Marechal wrote:
> On 09/04/2012 21:55, Frank Dittrich wrote:
> > What would an optimal work flow look like?
>
> This is the central question. I don't believe there is such a thing as
> an optimal work flow as it will depend on what you want to achieve :
> single user with multiple computing resources, several users sharing a
> single compute platform, local or remote usage, access control, etc.
Could you imagine common interface for all multiple and single computer with
local or/and remote access? Assume that we already have abstract cracking
device that hides such technical details. So we have one or more persons
interacting with this device while it handles all dirty work like
distribution. Also assume that among all persons we have one which really
"push buttons" while others just suggest what to do. So there are only one
real person and one real computer.
I mean that if we hide technical details than we have only one case: one
person with one computer. And there probably is optimal work flow for that
person. For other cases it varies a bit. But we could (try to) make real
interface (in software) that hides technical differences. And I think that is
what I intend to do.
It seems to be too general and hard to do. So we stick only to optimal work
flow and do interface supporting only that. Is it rational? Or maybe it would
be harder than to develop general abstraction and employ it to support our
optimal work flow, wouldn't it?
Thanks!
Regards,
Aleksey Cherepanov
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.
