|
oclhc-plus: Incremental-bruteforce in hybrid attack
|
|
06-10-2012, 04:13 PM
Post: #1
|
|||
|
|||
|
oclhc-plus: Incremental-bruteforce in hybrid attack
Hello, I want to request the support of incremental-bruteforce while using the hybrid attack.
Instead of: Code: -a6 %dict% ?d?dOne cute line: Code: -a6 %dict% --hy-min=2 ?d?d?d?d?dSounds good? |
|||
|
06-10-2012, 04:15 PM
Post: #2
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: oclhc-plus: Incremental-bruteforce in hybrid attack
I just found myself wishing for this an hour ago.
|
|||
|
06-10-2012, 04:16 PM
Post: #3
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: oclhc-plus: Incremental-bruteforce in hybrid attack
sounds very useful
|
|||
|
06-11-2012, 09:36 AM
Post: #4
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: oclhc-plus: Incremental-bruteforce in hybrid attack
This is very hard to implement. More demand?
|
|||
|
06-13-2012, 10:57 PM
Post: #5
|
|||
|
|||
| RE: oclhc-plus: Incremental-bruteforce in hybrid attack | |||
|
06-15-2012, 07:36 PM
Post: #6
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: oclhc-plus: Incremental-bruteforce in hybrid attack
A batch file with those lines doesn't give the same results ?
|
|||
|
06-15-2012, 07:40 PM
Post: #7
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: oclhc-plus: Incremental-bruteforce in hybrid attack
@proinside:: It does, but I'm trying to save some time + to have one final result of cracked hashes, time, speed and all.
|
|||
|
06-15-2012, 08:36 PM
Post: #8
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: oclhc-plus: Incremental-bruteforce in hybrid attack
err. I'm currently achieving this by using a loop.
:Label -a6 %dict% %mask% %mask% =%mask%?d Goto label.... Problem solved I reckon. Saves atom a ton of time. |
|||
|
06-15-2012, 09:04 PM
Post: #9
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: oclhc-plus: Incremental-bruteforce in hybrid attack
@blazer:: That's not really a smart idea. And again:
M@LIK Wrote: ...I'm trying to save some time + to have one final result of cracked hashes, time, speed and all. |
|||
|
06-15-2012, 11:10 PM
Post: #10
|
|||
|
|||
RE: oclhc-plus: Incremental-bruteforce in hybrid attack
Quote:It does, but I'm trying to save some time + to have one final result of cracked hashes, time, speed and all. Yes, I see and agree with your point of view. At least, every new batch line requires the same dictionaire to be scanned, even if it is faster, but it is in fact a waste of time, energy and, perhaps, other things. |
|||
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Search
Member List
Calendar
Help




