|
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.