Can hybrid attack work with rules? - Printable Version +- hashcat Forum (https://hashcat.net/forum) +-- Forum: Deprecated; Previous versions (https://hashcat.net/forum/forum-29.html) +--- Forum: Old oclHashcat Support (https://hashcat.net/forum/forum-38.html) +--- Thread: Can hybrid attack work with rules? (/thread-4003.html) |
Can hybrid attack work with rules? - SopalajoArrierez - 01-23-2015 OCLHashCat v1.32 yields no error for this command-line (hybrid attack): Code: oclhashcat64 -m 1000 Hashes.txt -a 6 Dictio.txt ?d -j d So, can I assume that "-j" option (rule for left dictionary) works with this attack? Thanks you. RE: Can hybrid attack work with rules? - atom - 01-23-2015 Single rules (-j) are supposed to work in this case, just -r is not. RE: Can hybrid attack work with rules? - SopalajoArrierez - 01-24-2015 Well... then, I think I have found a bug in OCLHashCat. Case command-line: Code: # Creation of the password test file with key example "rafa3rafa3: I think the rule is being ignored. Same results for "-k" intead of "-j". Should I open a bug ticket? Note: Cain dictionary downloaded from here: http://downloads.skullsecurity.org/passwords/cain.txt.bz2 RE: Can hybrid attack work with rules? - epixoip - 01-24-2015 I don't think that attack does what you think it does. Your plaintext input is "rafa3rafa3". If cain.txt contains the word "rafa", then "-a 6 cain.txt ?d -j d" will generate the candidate "rafarafa3" but not "rafa3rafa3". RE: Can hybrid attack work with rules? - SopalajoArrierez - 01-24-2015 (01-24-2015, 07:36 AM)epixoip Wrote: If cain.txt contains the word "rafa", then "-a 6 cain.txt ?d -j d" will generate the candidate "rafarafa3" but not "rafa3rafa3".I understand: rules are applied before, and idctionary combination is applied later. Thanks you. Then the only way to generate "rafa3rafa3" would be the previous generation of a dictionary "cain.txt" combined with "?d" (1 decimal digit), so it will contain the word "rafa3" and do: Code: oclhashcat64 -m 1000 TestPassword.txt cain-mask-1xd.txt -j d RE: Can hybrid attack work with rules? - philsmd - 01-24-2015 to avoid to generate a large dict also something like this would work in your particular case: file: my_append_num_and_duplicate.rule Code: $0 d Code: oclhashcat64 -m 1000 -r my_append_num_and_duplicate.rule TestPassword.txt cain.txt RE: Can hybrid attack work with rules? - SopalajoArrierez - 01-24-2015 (01-24-2015, 08:43 AM)philsmd Wrote: to avoid to generate a large dict also something like this would work in your particular case:A good idea, indeed. Would it be the same as this other one? Code: oclhashcat64 -m 1000 -r my_append_num.rule TestPassword.txt cain.txt -j d Considering the file is now: Code: $0 RE: Can hybrid attack work with rules? - SopalajoArrierez - 01-24-2015 Mmm.. I think I could answer myself. Acording to my tests, it seems that the order between -r, -j and -k would be: -j goes first. -r goes second. -k doesn't go: it is ignored. Am I right? RE: Can hybrid attack work with rules? - philsmd - 01-24-2015 -k is applied only on the second dictionary. So it makes sense for instance with "-a 1 dict1.txt dict2.txt". So technically it isn't ignored, it just not applied since there is no second dictionary (or better said, the right-hand side) in your particular case. Btw. I am not quite sure why you insist to use -j d . If you want to "split" the rules, there is also another interesting feature called multi-rules: see https://hashcat.net/wiki/doku.php?id=rule_based_attack#multi-rules . Basically, you can do -r append_num.rule -r duplicate.rule RE: Can hybrid attack work with rules? - SopalajoArrierez - 01-24-2015 (01-24-2015, 09:27 AM)philsmd Wrote: If you want to "split" the rules, there is also another interesting feature called multi-rules: see https://hashcat.net/wiki/doku.php?id=rule_based_attack#multi-rules .Fine! That is the one I was searching for. When reading the docs, I thought multirules where sequential (attack the hash by using append_num.rule, then attack the hash by using duplicate.rul, not combined). It makes more sense now. Thanks you all for explaining. |