|
Search Results
|
| Post |
Author |
Forum
[asc]
|
Replies |
Views |
Posted |
| |
|
Thread: My bugs for v0.09b41
Post: RE: My bugs for v0.09b41
| Fixed:
Quote:
--
- For -m 30 md5(unicode($pass).$salt), Length 15 does not work on all modes
--
Left:
Quote:
--
- For -m 111 nsldaps, SSHA-1(Base64), Netscape LDAP SSHA, Dictionary attack work... |
|
atom |
Beta Tester
|
18 |
16,154 |
08-10-2012, 12:42 PM |
| |
|
Thread: My bugs for v0.09b41
Post: RE: My bugs for v0.09b41
| Fixed:
Quote:
--
- For -m 111 nsldaps, SSHA-1(Base64), Netscape LDAP SSHA, Dictionary attack works (-a 0) but all the other attack mode fails.
- For -m 1710 sha512($pass.$salt), dictionary worked f... |
|
atom |
Beta Tester
|
18 |
16,154 |
08-10-2012, 01:50 PM |
| |
|
Thread: My bugs for v0.09b41
Post: RE: My bugs for v0.09b41
| I have uploaded a new beta b43, please retry everything (not just the stuff that was marked as buggy) because of bugfixes new errors can appear somewhere. |
|
atom |
Beta Tester
|
18 |
16,154 |
08-10-2012, 01:51 PM |
| |
|
Thread: 0.09b44 known bugs left
Post: 0.09b44 known bugs left
| overall:
-m 11 broken
-m 141 broken
-m 1800 broken (amd tested, nv not yet) on pw length 1 and 3
multihash (singlehash worked!), tested in -a 0
-m 1400 broken (amd tested, nv not yet)
-m 1410 broke... |
|
atom |
Beta Tester
|
2 |
3,798 |
08-10-2012, 10:41 PM |
| |
|
Thread: 0.09b44 known bugs left
Post: RE: 0.09b44 known bugs left
| fixed in b45 (not yet uploaded)
Quote:
--
-m 1400 broken (amd tested, nv not yet)
-m 1410 broken (amd tested, nv not yet)
-m 1420 broken (amd tested, nv not yet)
--
|
|
atom |
Beta Tester
|
2 |
3,798 |
08-10-2012, 10:49 PM |
| |
|
Thread: My bugs for v0.09b41
Post: RE: My bugs for v0.09b41
| ok i will close this thread, lets continue on the v44 |
|
atom |
Beta Tester
|
18 |
16,154 |
08-12-2012, 06:29 PM |
| |
|
Thread: current v44 status
Post: RE: Now for NVidia
|
Quote:
--
I am not sure what the definition of "broken" is but for sure, 1400, 1410, 1420, 2600, 2611 are not broken in my setup. My only concern is my forceware that is not recent. I will do the t... |
|
atom |
Beta Tester
|
18 |
16,474 |
08-12-2012, 06:34 PM |
| |
|
Thread: My bugs for 0.09b41 -- The AMD side
Post: RE: My bugs for 0.09b41 -- The AMD side
|
atom |
Beta Tester
|
10 |
10,283 |
08-12-2012, 06:39 PM |
| |
|
Thread: 0.09b44 known bugs left
Post: RE: 0.09b44 known bugs left
|
atom |
Beta Tester
|
2 |
3,798 |
08-12-2012, 06:41 PM |
| |
|
Thread: current v44 status
Post: RE: current v44 status
| mastercracker, are you testing on single hash or multihash? its two different kernels |
|
atom |
Beta Tester
|
18 |
16,474 |
08-12-2012, 06:42 PM |
| |
|
Thread: current v44 status
Post: RE: current v44 status
| fixed (on amd)
Quote:
--
- For -m 0 MD5, bruteforce of length 2, 4 and 8 fails. Everything else works.
- For -m 900 MD4, Bruteforce on length 2,4,8 and 12 fails. Everything else works.
- For -m 100... |
|
atom |
Beta Tester
|
18 |
16,474 |
08-12-2012, 07:43 PM |
| |
|
Thread: current v44 status
Post: RE: current v44 status
| i will remove the fixed issues from the original post, so its easier for me to track them |
|
atom |
Beta Tester
|
18 |
16,474 |
08-12-2012, 07:44 PM |
| |
|
Thread: Dropping support for -a 4 permutation-attack
Post: Dropping support for -a 4 permutation-attack
| I am thinking about dropping support for permutation-attack from oclHashcat-plus. It will still stay in hashcat CPU and in hashcat-utils as well as stand-alone binary.
Thoughts? Who uses it? |
|
atom |
Beta Tester
|
11 |
10,338 |
08-13-2012, 10:06 AM |
| |
|
Thread: [Bug] oclHashcat-plus --gpu-temp-retain
Post: RE: [Bug] oclHashcat-plus --gpu-temp-retain
|
atom |
Beta Tester
|
2 |
3,285 |
08-13-2012, 10:07 AM |
| |
|
Thread: current v44 status
Post: RE: current v44 status
| Fixed @ AMD:
Quote:
--
- For -m 30 md5(unicode($pass).$salt), bruteforce on length 2 and 4 fails. Everything else works.
- For -m 130 sha1(unicode($pass).$salt), bruteforce on length 2 and 4 fails... |
|
atom |
Beta Tester
|
18 |
16,474 |
08-13-2012, 10:31 AM |
| |
|
Thread: Dropping support for -a 4 permutation-attack
Post: RE: Dropping support for -a 4 permutation-attack
| sorry?
toggle rules and permutation attack have nothing in common |
|
atom |
Beta Tester
|
11 |
10,338 |
08-13-2012, 10:51 AM |
| |
|
Thread: Dropping support for -a 4 permutation-attack
Post: RE: Dropping support for -a 4 permutation-attack
| yeah i agree.. other thoughts? |
|
atom |
Beta Tester
|
11 |
10,338 |
08-13-2012, 10:58 AM |
| |
|
Thread: Dropping support for -a 4 permutation-attack
Post: RE: Dropping support for -a 4 permutation-attack
| it costs me a lot of time developing the kernels. 25% of these are because of permutation attack. program architecture will be smaller and the diskspace reduces because we dont need the _a4 kernel any... |
|
atom |
Beta Tester
|
11 |
10,338 |
08-13-2012, 12:29 PM |
| |
|
Thread: Dropping support for -a 4 permutation-attack
Post: RE: Dropping support for -a 4 permutation-attack
| OK, if no one explicitly cares about this feature I think we can remove it. It will still stay in the repository if we need it back. |
|
atom |
Beta Tester
|
11 |
10,338 |
08-14-2012, 09:53 AM |
| |
|
Thread: current v44 status
Post: RE: current v44 status
| fixed:
Quote:
--
-m 11 broken
--
|
|
atom |
Beta Tester
|
18 |
16,474 |
08-14-2012, 01:55 PM |
