[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP188CDB2C651FD1F85FACD73FD370@phx.gbl>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 21:55:16 +0200
From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: automation equipped working place of hash cracker,
proposal
Re-post of what I accidentally posted on john-dev instead of on john-users:
Hi Aleksey,
it seems like you really did think a lot about an optimal work flow for
a team of pen testers trying to crack many passwords with different
password hash types.
To get the discussion going, may be you could elaborate a bit:
What would an optimal work flow look like?
What would be similarities and differences between collaborative
cracking by a team and cracking by a single person with enough hardware
resources?
What kind of problems (deviations from an "optimal" work flow) did you
recognize during or after the 2012 CrackMeIfYouCan contest?
Which were the most significant problems?
How could software tools have helped avoiding those problems, or
reducing their impact?
Which parts of the work flow could benefit most from automizing /
supporting them with minimal programming effort
May be when you share your thoughts, it will be easier for others to
comment.
May be they agree with you about what the most important problems were,
but don't agree about how easy it might be to address these issues with
additional software tools.
May be other list members offer insights about other problems you didn't
recognize so far or which you took as less important for the overall
success.
At least we'll hopefully get some discussion which helps decide what
could / should be part of a GSoC project to help improve collaborative
password cracking.
Frank
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.
