Posts: 723
Threads: 85
Joined: Apr 2011
11-04-2011, 09:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-04-2011, 09:33 PM by Hash-IT.)
Hi
I was wondering is it possible in any way to bypass the has to be > 8 character WPA password selection filter in HashcatPlus ?
My reason for asking is that I have rules that would bring the password length to greater or at least equal to 8 characters.
Example …
“Monkey†would be skipped by HashcatPlus when working on WPA but if my Rules files contains …
$1$2$3
Then Monkey123 would at least be tested.
I have looked but I cannot find a command that overrides this feature for WPA testing.
Thanks.
Posts: 5,185
Threads: 230
Joined: Apr 2010
Since the rule engine processes the word before the rejection filter in case of WPA, the word got passed. The word "Monkey123" is greater than length 8.
Posts: 723
Threads: 85
Joined: Apr 2011
Ahhh... I see, that's very clever of you ! :o)
Thank you for the quick reply.
I had tested this but assumed wrongly that this wasn't happening. I realise that it was my fault entirely ( I missed out a "$" in my rule ).
I assumed hashcatplus was filtering before running the rules as I get a lot of "rejected" passwords when I first run hashcatplus. The password list I use has been filtered for duplicates so I assumed hashcatplus was filtering <7 characters.
I now wonder what is being rejected from my list and why.
Thank you.
Posts: 30
Threads: 4
Joined: Oct 2011
rejected all from 16+ characters
oclHashcat-plus 8-16 characters
Posts: 723
Threads: 85
Joined: Apr 2011
(11-04-2011, 11:32 PM)mr008 Wrote: rejected all from 16+ characters
oclHashcat-plus 8-16 characters
Hi mr008 and thanks for your help.
I should have mentioned that I had already sorted and filtered my lists so they are 8-16 and I still get some rejections.
I also tried 5 - 16 which is why I wrongly assumed hashcatplus was rejecting the less than 8 character length ones. But as we can see from atom's reply the <8 characters are not filtered so this allows rules to do their thing.
I have looked around and I cannot see how or what hashcatplus considers a rejection.
Posts: 5,185
Threads: 230
Joined: Apr 2010
maybe because it is not 8 - 16. its 8 - 15.
Posts: 723
Threads: 85
Joined: Apr 2011
(11-05-2011, 05:27 PM)atom Wrote: maybe because it is not 8 - 16. its 8 - 15.
Ahh...
All has become clear ! Thanks.