[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP401333E4331C752EF1FCCE7FD100@phx.gbl>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 12:15:01 +0200
From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: automation equipped working place of hash cracker,
proposal
On 05/08/2012 10:52 AM, Aleksey Cherepanov wrote:
> Alexander suggested to not waste our time on generation .rec files
Yes, I think generating .rec files to distribute cracking tasks to
different clients is not such a good idea.
The file format can change any time, even if you get this done you'll
end up in a maintenance nightmare if you need to support different
versions of .rec file formats.
Another issue IMO is to collect .rec files after interrupting tasks.
These .rec files have been created by john.
And we are collecting them for later reuse _in_the_same_pen_test_.
Once you realize that the cracking rate of a particular task is not as
good as the cracking rate of other tasks, you might want to interrupt
this task, and use the machine for more effective cracking attempts.
During the pen test, the overall cracking rate fill finally decrease, so
that continuing the task that had been interrupted is an interesting
option. (Of course, you wouldn't want to duplicate effort that has
already been spent on this task. That's why, you prefer to reuse the
.rec file.)
If you want to continue this task on a different client, you'll probably
have to transfer it to the central server.
The risk that you have to use different, incompatible john versions
during the same pen test, should be rather small.
If this really is required, you'd need to keep track of which client is
running which john version.
Frank
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.
