|
Message-ID: <927750830c3c68b5b018eedc40b30213@smtp.hushmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 17:43:50 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: raw-md5 vs raw-md5u, one hash with 2 different passwords On 2015-05-12 10:38, Aleksey Cherepanov wrote: > In 2012 Alexander Cherepanov noticed that raw-md5u format can be > cracked as raw-md5 in some cases: 2 spaces represent the dagger symbol > "(U+2020) which exist in windows code pages and, [he] think, can > easily be entered from keyboard. If a unicode password consists of > only such symbols then it can be found by trying various printable > ascii characters in non-unicode way. But such cross-matches seem small > and exotic." > (...) > Conclusion: One ciphertext may be crackable as different formats and > may represent different passwords. So when we are not sure in the > format and we got a crack, it does not reliably mean that we guessed > the format right. Though it is a rare case. The dagger is a curious example. A similar but less exotic thing happens with hashes of non-Unicode strings, ie. strings including non-ASCII characters in some 8-bit single byte codepage. CP437: Müller CP154: MҒller CP737: MΒller CP856: Mבller CP864: M·ller CP932: M〕ler CP936: M乴ler CP949: M걄ler CP950: Mler CP1046: M×ller CP1125: MБller CP1251: MЃller CP1256: Mپller All the above encodes to the same six-byte string with \x81 as second byte, and all would obviously get the same LM (or any other) hash. There are many more codepages than these, I just picked some my iconv(1) could handle for this byte. BTW note that CP932..CP950 seem to swallow the first "l" so they are probably multibyte endocings just like UTF-8. They produce some character from "\x81\x6c". Regardless, they too are very same binary string. 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.