[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <954e351c7b040491b18650f1e94bcefd@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 13:37:11 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: ssha cpu format
On 20 Apr, 2013, at 1:56 , Rich Rumble <richrumble@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:28 PM, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I really don't understand the question, but "salted-sha1" is the CPU
>> format for older LDAP (corresponding to ssha-opencl for GPU). If there's
>> newer LDAP using SHA-2, I'm not sure where we stand but it'd be a walk in
>> the park to support it.
>
> The question is, why -format=ssha isn't available when I build it on windows cygwin. I've followed the instructions previously posted to the
Did you mean -fo:salted-sha1 is not available on cygwin?
> list: http://marc.info/?l=john-users&m=120270251402411 for extracting Ldap
> hashes for an audit I'm doing.
> My hashes look good (to me :), but aren't recognized even if I omit the
> format switch, I may not have done something right however...
>
> None of these load for me (even if drop the {xxx} )
> username:{SSHA}WTT3B9Jjr8gOt0Q7WMs9/XvukyhTQj0Ns0jMKQ==
> username:{SHA}cMiB1KJphN3OeV9vcYF8nPRIDnk=:::::::
> datkommadr:{SSHA}f4VgVNep4cz7Vy1BgPbmelC/N6+rYdWw7WGuLA==
> dabob:{SSHA}sa0QU3f7p7CPpMSA3st/N9Hjjlq1in7MiIbAWw==
> bob:{SSHA}Yio7m8PrVuK4apWV4l0TqCjbeHlvLVN6
> data:{SHA}S0QPkjhGaP3VAe6oPukLMTh3zMmqIOJ1LlU9g==:::data
> -rich
That's strange. Here, the four {SSHA} hashes loads and cracks by the salted-sha1 format. One of the {SHA} hashes (the first) loads and cracks by the nsldap format, the other one is rejected. I'll look into why.
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.
