+- 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: Multi Character Re-Map (/thread-1570.html)
Multi Character Re-Map - Hash-IT - 09-17-2012
Please can we have a rule feature like the substitution one is now
but allowing the user to perform multiple substitutions per rule
line ?
I won't go into why this would be very useful as it will make this
thread overly complicated... again !
At the moment when using hashcat-plus a user can make a rule file
like this?
Code:
ss$Which changes password to pa$$word.
This is great and very useful, however it would be fantastic if
the following was possible.
Code:
Sa4sb8sc(se3si1so0ss$st7sz2(please note, all substitutions on one line and run together).
Which changes password to p4$$w0rd.
I know this can be achieved with other things but this example is
to try to make the request as simple to understand and explain as possible.
Thank you
RE: Multi Character Re-Map - atom - 09-17-2012
This should work already, however the max. number of function calls per rule is limit to 14. Try with two and hashcat and --stdout mode. I dont see why this isnt working already
RE: Multi Character Re-Map - Hash-IT - 09-17-2012
Ha ha, oh dear, unforeseen consequences !
In my effort to demonstrate this in a simple way I have over done it a bit. You are correct atom it does work as you say.
I tried to modify more than 14 in my tests and wrongly assumed this feature wasn't available, sorry.
Well, I guess my request has shifted, again ! Could you make it possible for user to make more substitutions than the current limit of 14 please ?
Particularly when using the rule in hashcat-plus.
For a particular idea I have I need at least 26 but more would be better if possible.
Thank you.
RE: Multi Character Re-Map - atom - 09-18-2012
Currently there is no way around this limit, sorry
RE: Multi Character Re-Map - Hash-IT - 09-18-2012
(09-18-2012, 12:03 PM)atom Wrote: Currently there is no way around this limit, sorry
Oh no !!
Thats what I was afraid of, I thought there may be a technical reason for the limit and it would seem there is.
I have re-worded the feature on the request page on the wiki, if at anytime you can work out a solution please will you consider it ?
Thank you for your help.