New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Raise Bitwarden Iteration Limit #3980
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Raise Bitwarden Iteration Limit #3980
Conversation
Replace old 999,999 iteration cap with a larger cap to satisfy: https://hashcat.net/forum/thread-11885.html. Unknown if there is any Bitwarden-native cap on iterations.
This doesn't appear to be able to load the hash (though it can from the benchmark). I ran the following command
|
Not sure how I didn't see this, thanks. Must've been something I added after testing to simplify the code a bit |
What do you think about creating some consts like const static unsigned ITER_DIGITS_MIN = 1;
const static unsigned ITER_DIGITS_MAX = 10;
// validate with those values
const unsigned iter_min = pow(10, ITER_DIGITS_MIN - 1);
const unsigned iter_max = pow(10, ITER_DIGITS_MAX - 1);
if (iter1 < iter_min) return (PARSER_SALT_ITERATION);
if (iter1 > iter_max) return (PARSER_SALT_ITERATION); |
Well, it's just set to int-max for now. The kernel itself would have to be re-designed if you wanted to go higher and there could potentially be accidental accuracy/overflow issues if you do go higher than u32 and it's not caught. Defining consts would only be purely a readability thing, it wouldn't enable easy future expansion |
Hmm... Well, isn't it simpler to use It's more about readability rather than option to quick and easy increase iter size. |
Co-authored-by: kgolawski <konrad.golawski@gmail.com>
Replace old 999,999 iteration cap with a larger cap to satisfy: https://hashcat.net/forum/thread-11885.html. Unknown if there is any Bitwarden-native cap on iterations.