bolha.us is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
We're a Brazilian IT Community. We love IT/DevOps/Cloud, but we also love to talk about life, the universe, and more. | Nós somos uma comunidade de TI Brasileira, gostamos de Dev/DevOps/Cloud e mais!

Server stats:

251
active users

#passwordcracking

2 posts2 participants0 posts today
Royce Williams<p>TIL if you generate and store all even <em>faintly</em> possible IPv4 IPs - 0.0.0.0 through 255.255.255.255 - as ASCII strings ... it takes about 58GB.</p><p>This is a <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/HaveIBeenPwned" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>HaveIBeenPwned</span></a> subtoot. 😜 </p><p><a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/PasswordCracking" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PasswordCracking</span></a></p>
Royce Williams<p>Password crackers:</p><p>If you're still mashing up all of your wordlists into a single monolithic file for deduplication purposes ... let me suggest an option that scales better, simply by approaching the problem differently:</p><p>Deduplicate each new source as it arrives, and then add it to a repository, by removing all strings already in your repository ...and then <em>preserve it as a separate file</em>! (You might call this the "sort once, deduplicate often" method.)</p><p><a href="https://blog.techsolvency.com/2025/04/managing-unique-wordlists-password-cracking.html" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">blog.techsolvency.com/2025/04/</span><span class="invisible">managing-unique-wordlists-password-cracking.html</span></a></p><p>The key benefit: the memory usage required is a factor of the size of the new file alone, rather than of the entire corpus.</p><p>Also useful for other medium-sized "dedupe a recurring stream of new sets of strings over time" use cases.</p><p>(And if you're not doing this anymore, now you have a reference to share with the folks who still are!)</p><p><a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/PasswordCracking" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PasswordCracking</span></a></p>
Will Hunt<p>Top <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/hashcat" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>hashcat</span></a> tip:</p><p>Want per-position duplication in your rules to leverage your GPU?</p><p>It's not available in a single op, but you can emulate it by incrementally duplicating the first N chars, and then incrementally deleting the position and frequency of the redundant characters</p><p><a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/password" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>password</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/passwordcracking" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>passwordcracking</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/pentest" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>pentest</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/redteam" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>redteam</span></a></p>
Royce Williams<p>If you need to sort and dedupe a ton of strings/records, Cynosure Prime member blazer has released rlite, a 'lite' version of rling. I helped debug early versions. A nice balance of performant and simple, but with useful knobs like frequency counting, writing dupes to another file, etc.</p><p>(And heavy on the 'performant' - multi-threaded sort + dedupe time for 1.4B records in a 16GB file is 45 seconds on 48 EPYC 7642 cores, and uses 26GB of RAM)</p><p><a href="https://github.com/Cynosureprime/rlite" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="">github.com/Cynosureprime/rlite</span><span class="invisible"></span></a></p><p><a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/PasswordCracking" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PasswordCracking</span></a></p>
Royce Williams<p>Next time password cracking comes up conversationally and someone says "And can't you can just use rainbow tables" ... send them this.</p><p><a href="https://hashcat.net/faq/rainbowtables" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="">hashcat.net/faq/rainbowtables</span><span class="invisible"></span></a></p><p>tl;dr They are only worthwhile in a very specific (and rare) set of circumstances.</p><p><a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/PasswordCracking" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PasswordCracking</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/RainbowTables" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>RainbowTables</span></a></p>
Royce Williams<p>Today's traditional UNIX crypt / descrypt / hashcat -m 1500 trivia.</p><p>if you see a descrypt crack ending in <code>\x8a</code> ... no you didn't.</p><p>These actually end in <code>\x0a</code> -- descrypt drops all high bits, turning <code>\x8a</code> into <code>\x0a</code>!</p><p><a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/PasswordCracking" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PasswordCracking</span></a></p>
Royce Williams<p>Password cracking tip: </p><p>Grow your ability to understand the math of your attack space.</p><p>One nice way to practice this: for a given attack, use Wolfram Alpha (or a calculator, etc.) to roughly confirm the math of your tool's ETA for your attack.</p><p>If they don't match, check your assumptions, your setup, or your understanding until they do.</p><p>In this example, the total number of guesses scheduled for this attack will take these two GPUs, running at the hashrate shown, a little under 46 days to complete.</p><p><a href="https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=%281408965009*47622827%29+%2F+%2816989*1000000*60*60*24%29" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">wolframalpha.com/input?i=%2814</span><span class="invisible">08965009*47622827%29+%2F+%2816989*1000000*60*60*24%29</span></a></p><p>Practicing this estimation until you can do it very "back of the napkin" / order of magnitude in your head is valuable, just as it is with any "large numbers" effort / industry / exercise.</p><p><a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/PasswordCracking" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PasswordCracking</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/hashcat" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>hashcat</span></a></p>
Royce Williams<p>No, NCSC¹, passphrases of only three (or even four) random words are not sufficient - unless the user <em>knows</em> that the password hashing method is a "slow" one (bad for the attacker). Which is rarely guaranteed.</p><p>1025 combinations -- six words from a pool of 20K words, or five words from a pool of 100K words -- should be considered the minimum.</p><p>¹<a href="https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/top-tips-for-staying-secure-online/three-random-words" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">ncsc.gov.uk/collection/top-tip</span><span class="invisible">s-for-staying-secure-online/three-random-words</span></a></p><p><a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/Passphrases" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Passphrases</span></a><br><a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/PasswordCracking" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PasswordCracking</span></a></p>