+- hashcat Forum (https://hashcat.net/forum)
+-- Forum: Support (https://hashcat.net/forum/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: hashcat (https://hashcat.net/forum/forum-45.html)
+--- Thread: Hashcat Bruteforce Mode failure (/thread-7244.html)
Hashcat Bruteforce Mode failure - Kangaroot - 01-30-2018
Seems like Hashcat Brute force mode stopped properly working. Nothing was changed in terms proprietary nvidia drivers, though I have updated linux kernel several times, not sure when exactly it started to behave like this.
Example: hashcat -m 2500 -a 3 -w 3 [path-to-hccapx-file] ?a?a?a?a?a
Return: Skipping mask '?a?a?a?a?a' because it is smaller than the minimum password length.
After that hashcat stops. I've tried any number of chars, it returns the same apart from when I go over 9 chars. Used to work with any number of chars. What I'm missing out here?
RE: Hashcat Bruteforce Mode failure - undeath - 01-30-2018
wpa passwords must have a length of at least 8 characters. If it worked before that was a bug.
RE: Hashcat Bruteforce Mode failure - Kangaroot - 01-30-2018
undeath, it would have made sense if I didn't have old router with old firmware, where I could simply change my pass to whatever I liked.
RE: Hashcat Bruteforce Mode failure - undeath - 01-30-2018
the wpa specification does not allow passwords shorter than 8 characters.
RE: Hashcat Bruteforce Mode failure - Kangaroot - 01-30-2018
undeath, is it not just a recommendation?
RE: Hashcat Bruteforce Mode failure - undeath - 01-30-2018
it is not.
RE: Hashcat Bruteforce Mode failure - Kangaroot - 01-30-2018
undeath, thank you for support! May I ask for some references in protocol where this is being determined?
RE: Hashcat Bruteforce Mode failure - Skwerl23 - 01-31-2018
(01-30-2018, 02:57 PM)Kangaroot Wrote: undeath, thank you for support! May I ask for some references in protocol where this is being determined?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_Protected_Access#Target_users_(authentication_key_distribution)
RE: Hashcat Bruteforce Mode failure - Kangaroot - 01-31-2018
Skwerl23, great, thanks. Missed this paragraph when read it first time.