hashcat Forum

Full Version: < 8 Character WPA Passwords
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Hi

I was wondering is it possible in any way to bypass the has to be > 8 character WPA password selection filter in HashcatPlus ?

My reason for asking is that I have rules that would bring the password length to greater or at least equal to 8 characters.

Example …

“Monkey” would be skipped by HashcatPlus when working on WPA but if my Rules files contains …

$1$2$3

Then Monkey123 would at least be tested.

I have looked but I cannot find a command that overrides this feature for WPA testing.

Thanks.
Since the rule engine processes the word before the rejection filter in case of WPA, the word got passed. The word "Monkey123" is greater than length 8.

Ahhh... I see, that's very clever of you ! :o)

Thank you for the quick reply.

I had tested this but assumed wrongly that this wasn't happening. I realise that it was my fault entirely ( I missed out a "$" in my rule ).

I assumed hashcatplus was filtering before running the rules as I get a lot of "rejected" passwords when I first run hashcatplus. The password list I use has been filtered for duplicates so I assumed hashcatplus was filtering <7 characters.

I now wonder what is being rejected from my list and why.

Thank you.
rejected all from 16+ characters
oclHashcat-plus 8-16 characters
(11-04-2011, 11:32 PM)mr008 Wrote: [ -> ]rejected all from 16+ characters
oclHashcat-plus 8-16 characters

Hi mr008 and thanks for your help.

I should have mentioned that I had already sorted and filtered my lists so they are 8-16 and I still get some rejections.

I also tried 5 - 16 which is why I wrongly assumed hashcatplus was rejecting the less than 8 character length ones. But as we can see from atom's reply the <8 characters are not filtered so this allows rules to do their thing.

I have looked around and I cannot see how or what hashcatplus considers a rejection.

maybe because it is not 8 - 16. its 8 - 15.
(11-05-2011, 05:27 PM)atom Wrote: [ -> ]maybe because it is not 8 - 16. its 8 - 15.

Ahh... Smile

All has become clear ! Thanks.