[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130331082010.GA445@openwall.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 12:20:10 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: De-duping NT ruleset
Rich,
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 08:02:59PM -0400, Rich Rumble wrote:
> I ran a small test on "NT" using a simple set of letters:
> aaaaaaaaaaaaA
> AaAaAaAaAaAaa
> aaaaa
> AAAAA
>
> That produced 16448 cadidates, and half are repeats, it should be 8224
> unique cadidates. I changed NT to be like this instead (below), and it only
> produces 8224 like I believe it's supposed to.
You can't reliably adjust a JtR ruleset to avoid producing duplicates
stemming from similarities across multiple input words, without also
missing some desirable candidate passwords on other valid inputs. This
is a fundamental problem, it is not specific to the NT ruleset. Thus,
what you have done is introduce a bug: on other valid inputs, your
NT_Length will miss some passwords that NT would produce. This is easy
to see:
$ cat w
aaaaaaaaaaaaA
$ ./john -w=w -ru=NT_Length -stdo|sort -u|wc -l
words: 4096 time: 0:00:00:00 DONE (Sun Mar 31 12:10:09 2013) w/s: 45511 current: AAAAAAAAAAAAa
4096
$ ./john -w=w -ru=NT -stdo|sort -u|wc -l
words: 8192 time: 0:00:00:00 DONE (Sun Mar 31 12:10:11 2013) w/s: 102400 current: AAAAAAAAAAAAa
8192
... or is this on purpose, with NT_Length being intended for use on some
special cases of input files, not on all? If so, that's inconsistent
with the original purpose of the NT ruleset; perhaps you'd need to call
your ruleset differently and explain what inputs it is valid for, then.
Alexander
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.
