|
|
Message-ID: <571D03C2.9090103@openwall.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 12:34:58 -0500
From: jfoug <jfoug@...nwall.net>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Rules 'C' command, wtf???
NOTE, the same Mc type undocumented perversion is also in the 'c' rule.
Again, would this not be better to be handled by c=0M=1cT2 That way any
of the other case name rules (mentioned below), could also have rules
properly built for them.
On 4/24/2016 12:24 PM, jfoug wrote:
> case 'C':
> {
> int pos = 0;
> if ((in[0] = conv_tolower[ARCH_INDEX(in[0])]))
> while (in[++pos])
> in[pos] =
> conv_toupper[ARCH_INDEX(in[pos])];
> in[pos] = 0;
> }
> if (in[0] == 'm' && in[1] == 'C')
> in[2] = conv_tolower[ARCH_INDEX(in[2])];
> break;
>
> That is straight from core (jumbo is identical).
>
> From documentation:
>
> c capitalize
> C lowercase the first character, and uppercase the rest
>
> I do understand the why of the McXyz handling within C but it is not
> documented that way, and there are other cases which would also fall
> into this situation. I really think this is the wrong place to put
> this and that it would be better handled by a C=0m=1CT2 for this
> special case, vs perverting the behavior of the C rule. If we have
> the Mc rule, then why note Mac, De, Di ? I have also seen Aera, Bri
> and some others start doing this common name double capitalizing. BUT
> should that be in the rule? I think not.
>
> I did not find this obscure modification to the rule primitive, until
> I started running lots of random rules, looking for duplication. Well
> I found one which was duplicate, but all of a sudden, I ended up with
> something different, and was I was very surprised. When I went
> looking, I found this mCX being converted into mCx by the C rule.
>
--
Community volunteer for John the Ripper project.
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.