+- 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: bug in 1.35? (/thread-4274.html)
bug in 1.35? - rsberzerker - 04-13-2015
I hadn't noticed 1.35 was out, so I just downloaded it. I have been using 1.33. But when I ran 1.35, it didn't recover anything, while the same run with 1.33 did. Here are the command lines.
First I ran 1.35:
Code:
C:\<snip>\hashlist>..\cudaHashcat-1.35\cudaHashcat64.exe -a 0 -m 0 --remove -o 32found.txt 32_left_split_5.txt ..\wordlists -r rules\best64.rule --session=5md5best64Hashes recovered = 0
Then, without changing anything (other than cudahashcat version; I used command history and just changed the 5 to a 3), I ran 1.33:
Code:
C:\<snip>\hashlist>..\cudaHashcat-1.33\cudaHashcat64.exe -a 0 -m 0 --remove -o 32found.txt 32_left_split_5.txt ..\wordlists -r rules\best64.rule --session=5md5best64Hashes recovered = 294
I repeated this with a different ruleset and got roughly the same results: 1.35 first - 0 recovered, then 1.33 - 6 recovered.
Is this a bug in 1.35 or did something change between 1.33 or 1.35?
RE: bug in 1.35? - undeath - 04-13-2015
https://hashcat.net/forum/thread-4264-post-24293.html#pid24293
RE: bug in 1.35? - epixoip - 04-13-2015
Yes, -m 0 is broken in cudaHashcat 1.35. It's also broken in 1.31 - 1.33, though not as severely. Hoping 1.36 will be released real soon.
RE: bug in 1.35? - rsberzerker - 04-13-2015
So bug. Thanks. I guess I stick with 1.33 for now.