I think it is the other way around.
If we look at the file docs/changes.txt it mentions that the integer overflow check was first introduced with version 3.40 of hashcat. This is why you don't see the warning/error with version 3.30.
This implies if you for instance run this with hashcat 3.30:
it will overflow and you will see:
note: the value is not 463291230159753366058349609375 as it should be if 128 bit variables were used, but it shows the bug of an overflowed unsigned integer (64 bit overflow).
This problem was fixed with 3.40 and therefore you see the error/warning message instead of incorrect values.
Now you could say that the value of --keyspace is most of the time much smaller than the total number of password candidates. Which is true. Maybe one could implement a very nasty hack to work around the problem and show the --keyspace value nevertheless even if the number of password candidates are way too huge, but this would be just a complicated hack and doesn't really help much because the number of password candidates is still way too large.
If we look at the file docs/changes.txt it mentions that the integer overflow check was first introduced with version 3.40 of hashcat. This is why you don't see the warning/error with version 3.30.
Quote:- Mask Checks: Added integer overflow detection for a keyspace of a mask provided by user
This implies if you for instance run this with hashcat 3.30:
Code:
./hashcat64.bin -a 3 -m 0 example0.hash ?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?ait will overflow and you will see:
Code:
Progress.........: 0/11701187533149815199 (0.00%)note: the value is not 463291230159753366058349609375 as it should be if 128 bit variables were used, but it shows the bug of an overflowed unsigned integer (64 bit overflow).
This problem was fixed with 3.40 and therefore you see the error/warning message instead of incorrect values.
Now you could say that the value of --keyspace is most of the time much smaller than the total number of password candidates. Which is true. Maybe one could implement a very nasty hack to work around the problem and show the --keyspace value nevertheless even if the number of password candidates are way too huge, but this would be just a complicated hack and doesn't really help much because the number of password candidates is still way too large.