Johnny's aim is to automate and simplify the password cracking routine with the help of the tremendously versatile and robust John the Ripper, as well as add extra functionality on top of it, specific to Desktop and GUI paradigms, like improved hash and password workflow, multiple attacks and session management, easily define complex attack rules, visual feedback and statistics, all of it on top of the immense capabilities and features offered by both JtR core/proper as well as jumbo.
Hash Code Cracker 1.1 with Some Extra features
DOWNLOAD: https://urlgoal.com/2vHbDr
Verifiers SHALL require subscriber-chosen memorized secrets to be at least 8 characters in length. Verifiers SHOULD permit subscriber-chosen memorized secrets at least 64 characters in length. All printing ASCII [RFC 20] characters as well as the space character SHOULD be acceptable in memorized secrets. Unicode [ISO/ISC 10646] characters SHOULD be accepted as well. To make allowances for likely mistyping, verifiers MAY replace multiple consecutive space characters with a single space character prior to verification, provided that the result is at least 8 characters in length. Truncation of the secret SHALL NOT be performed. For purposes of the above length requirements, each Unicode code point SHALL be counted as a single character.
If Unicode characters are accepted in memorized secrets, the verifier SHOULD apply the Normalization Process for Stabilized Strings using either the NFKC or NFKD normalization defined in Section 12.1 of Unicode Standard Annex 15 [UAX 15]. This process is applied before hashing the byte string representing the memorized secret. Subscribers choosing memorized secrets containing Unicode characters SHOULD be advised that some characters may be represented differently by some endpoints, which can affect their ability to authenticate successfully.
Verifiers SHALL store look-up secrets in a form that is resistant to offline attacks. Look-up secrets having at least 112 bits of entropy SHALL be hashed with an approved one-way function as described in Section 5.1.1.2. Look-up secrets with fewer than 112 bits of entropy SHALL be salted and hashed using a suitable one-way key derivation function, also described in Section 5.1.1.2. The salt value SHALL be at least 32 in bits in length and arbitrarily chosen so as to minimize salt value collisions among stored hashes. Both the salt value and the resulting hash SHALL be stored for each look-up secret.
The authenticator SHALL accept transfer of the secret from the primary channel which it SHALL send to the verifier over the secondary channel to associate the approval with the authentication transaction. The claimant MAY perform the transfer manually or use a technology such as a barcode or QR code to effect the transfer.
Compromised authenticators include those that have been lost, stolen, or subject to unauthorized duplication. Generally, one must assume that a lost authenticator has been stolen or compromised by someone that is not the legitimate subscriber of the authenticator. Damaged or malfunctioning authenticators are also considered compromised to guard against any possibility of extraction of the authenticator secret. One notable exception is a memorized secret that has been forgotten without other indications of having been compromised, such as having been obtained by an attacker.
Something you know may be disclosed to an attacker. The attacker might guess a memorized secret. Where the authenticator is a shared secret, the attacker could gain access to the CSP or verifier and obtain the secret value or perform a dictionary attack on a hash of that value. An attacker may observe the entry of a PIN or passcode, find a written record or journal entry of a PIN or passcode, or may install malicious software (e.g., a keyboard logger) to capture the secret. Additionally, an attacker may determine the secret through offline attacks on a password database maintained by the verifier.
This document assumes that the subscriber is not colluding with an attacker who is attempting to falsely authenticate to the verifier. With this assumption in mind, the threats to the authenticator(s) used for digital authentication are listed in Table 8-1, along with some examples.
The above discussion focuses on threats to the authentication event itself, but hijacking attacks on the session following an authentication event can have similar security impacts. The session management guidelines in Section 7 are essential to maintain session integrity against attacks, such as XSS. In addition, it is important to sanitize all information to be displayed [OWASP-XSS-prevention] to ensure that it does not contain executable content. These guidelines also recommend that session secrets be made inaccessible to mobile code in order to provide extra protection against exfiltration of session secrets.
The impact of usability across digital systems needs to be considered as part of the risk assessment when deciding on the appropriate AAL. Authenticators with a higher AAL sometimes offer better usability and should be allowed for use for lower AAL applications.
Users should be encouraged to make their passwords as lengthy as they want, within reason. Since the size of a hashed password is independent of its length, there is no reason not to permit the use of lengthy passwords (or pass phrases) if the user wishes. Extremely long passwords (perhaps megabytes in length) could conceivably require excessive processing time to hash, so it is reasonable to have some limit.
Users also express frustration when attempts to create complex passwords are rejected by online services. Many services reject passwords with spaces and various special characters. In some cases, the special characters that are not accepted might be an effort to avoid attacks like SQL injection that depend on those characters. But a properly hashed password would not be sent intact to a database in any case, so such precautions are unnecessary. Users should also be able to include space characters to allow the use of phrases. Spaces themselves, however, add little to the complexity of passwords and may introduce usability issues (e.g., the undetected use of two spaces rather than one), so it may be beneficial to remove repeated spaces in typed passwords prior to verification.
The latest version is faster and contains a lot of new features like APR (ARP Poison Routing) which enables sniffing on switched LANs and Man-in-the-Middle attacks. The sniffer in this version can also analyze encrypted protocols such as SSH-1 and HTTPS and contains filters to capture credentials from a wide range of authentication mechanisms. The new version also ships routing protocols authentication monitors and routes extractors, dictionary and brute-force crackers for all common hashing algorithms and for several specific authentications, password/hash calculators, cryptanalysis attacks, password decoders and some not so common utilities related to network and system security.
A cryptographic hash function (CHF) is a hash algorithm (a map of an arbitrary binary string to a binary string with fixed size of n \displaystyle n bits) that has special properties desirable for a cryptographic application:[1]
Cryptographic hash functions have many information-security applications, notably in digital signatures, message authentication codes (MACs), and other forms of authentication. They can also be used as ordinary hash functions, to index data in hash tables, for fingerprinting, to detect duplicate data or uniquely identify files, and as checksums to detect accidental data corruption. Indeed, in information-security contexts, cryptographic hash values are sometimes called (digital) fingerprints, checksums, or just hash values, even though all these terms stand for more general functions with rather different properties and purposes.[2]
A cryptographic hash function must be able to withstand all known types of cryptanalytic attack. In theoretical cryptography, the security level of a cryptographic hash function has been defined using the following properties:
Informally, these properties mean that a malicious adversary cannot replace or modify the input data without changing its digest. Thus, if two strings have the same digest, one can be very confident that they are identical. Second pre-image resistance prevents an attacker from crafting a document with the same hash as a document the attacker cannot control. Collision resistance prevents an attacker from creating two distinct documents with the same hash.
In practice, collision resistance is insufficient for many practical uses. In addition to collision resistance, it should be impossible for an adversary to find two messages with substantially similar digests; or to infer any useful information about the data, given only its digest. In particular, a hash function should behave as much as possible like a random function (often called a random oracle in proofs of security) while still being deterministic and efficiently computable. This rules out functions like the SWIFFT function, which can be rigorously proven to be collision-resistant assuming that certain problems on ideal lattices are computationally difficult, but, as a linear function, does not satisfy these additional properties.[6]
In cryptographic practice, "difficult" generally means "almost certainly beyond the reach of any adversary who must be prevented from breaking the system for as long as the security of the system is deemed important". The meaning of the term is therefore somewhat dependent on the application since the effort that a malicious agent may put into the task is usually proportional to their expected gain. However, since the needed effort usually multiplies with the digest length, even a thousand-fold advantage in processing power can be neutralized by adding a dozen bits to the latter.
In some theoretical analyses "difficult" has a specific mathematical meaning, such as "not solvable in asymptotic polynomial time". Such interpretations of difficulty are important in the study of provably secure cryptographic hash functions but do not usually have a strong connection to practical security. For example, an exponential-time algorithm can sometimes still be fast enough to make a feasible attack. Conversely, a polynomial-time algorithm (e.g., one that requires n20 steps for n-digit keys) may be too slow for any practical use. 2ff7e9595c
Comments