Posts: 414
Threads: 14
Joined: Mar 2012
Hello, I want to request the support of
incremental-bruteforce while using the
hybrid attack.
Instead of:
Code:
-a6 %dict% ?d?d
-a6 %dict% ?d?d?d
-a6 %dict% ?d?d?d?d
-a6 %dict% ?d?d?d?d?d
One cute line:
Code:
-a6 %dict% --hy-min=2 ?d?d?d?d?d
Sounds good?
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 12
Joined: May 2012
I just found myself wishing for this an hour ago.
Posts: 2,301
Threads: 11
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,185
Threads: 230
Joined: Apr 2010
This is very hard to implement. More demand?
Posts: 723
Threads: 85
Joined: Apr 2011
(06-11-2012, 09:36 AM)atom Wrote: This is very hard to implement. More demand?
Well, I would never "demand" anything
However I think M@LIK has had a good idea there.
Posts: 134
Threads: 27
Joined: May 2010
A batch file with those lines doesn't give the same results ?
Posts: 414
Threads: 14
Joined: Mar 2012
@
proinside:: It does, but I'm trying to save some time + to have one final result of cracked hashes, time, speed and all.
Posts: 85
Threads: 15
Joined: Jun 2010
err. I'm currently achieving this by using a loop.
:Label
-a6 %dict% %mask%
%mask% =%mask%?d
Goto label....
Problem solved I reckon. Saves atom a ton of time.
Posts: 414
Threads: 14
Joined: Mar 2012
@
blazer:: That's not really a smart idea. And again:
M@LIK Wrote: ...I'm trying to save some time + to have one final result of cracked hashes, time, speed and all.
Posts: 134
Threads: 27
Joined: May 2010
Quote:It does, but I'm trying to save some time + to have one final result of cracked hashes, time, speed and all.
Yes, I see and agree with your point of view.
At least, every new batch line requires the same dictionaire to be scanned,
even if it is faster, but it is in fact a waste of time, energy and, perhaps,
other things.