+- hashcat Forum (https://hashcat.net/forum)
+-- Forum: Deprecated; Ancient Versions (https://hashcat.net/forum/forum-46.html)
+--- Forum: Feature Requests (https://hashcat.net/forum/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: Lotus HTTP Hash (/thread-12.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Lotus HTTP Hash - alexTr - 01-26-2012
Atom, your application is great! Thank you very much! About Lotus hashes... Now salted hashes are widespread, this algo is more secured, so popular and really needed. There is no GPU implementation. Now I'm using john the ripper(dominosec), but it's so slow. I hope you'll change this soon.
RE: Lotus HTTP Hash - Tommy - 02-23-2012
+1 for G-hash
RE: Lotus HTTP Hash - rajak - 09-22-2012
(05-06-2010, 09:09 AM)atom Wrote: never heared of this algo. are you sure that this important for a bigger number of users? i try to add it in a later version, but i will give it a lower priority until more users reply to this thread asking for support.
+1 for the dominosec/G-hash format. It is actually still somewhat common among large companies. The older lotus5 type is lower priority as it is more manageable with CPU based crackers. dominosec on john runs around 100k c/s compared to 140M c/s for lotus5.
RE: Lotus HTTP Hash - thebug - 10-18-2012
+1 for the dominosec/G-hash format
RE: Lotus HTTP Hash - Bitweasil - 10-21-2012
The latest SVN source of the Cryptohaze Multiforcer supports unsalted Lotus Domino hashes. Salted support is in the works.