Bug#861582: ITP: libzc -- Fast, portable and high-quality zip cracking library featuring bruteforce, dictionary and plaintext attack modes.
Le 1 mai 2017 04:10:36 GMT+02:00, Marc Ferland <marc.ferland@gmail.com> a écrit :
>Package: wnpp
>Severity: wishlist
>Owner: Marc Ferland <marc.ferland@gmail.com>
>
>* Package name : libzc
> Version : 0.3.0
> Upstream Author : Marc Ferland <marc.ferland@gmail.com>
>* URL : https://github.com/mferland/libzc
>* License : GPL-3.0
> Programming Lang: C
>Description : Fast, portable and high-quality zip cracking library
>featuring bruteforce, dictionary and plaintext attack modes.
>
>
>libzc is a fast, portable and high-quality zip breaking library. It
>targets exclusively the earlier PKZIP-2.0 cipher (just like fcrackzip,
>and pkcrack).
>
>It is entirely written in C (no assembly language, so very portable)
>and has very little dependencies. Currently, only zlib and libcheck
>(for unit tests) are required to build it.
>
>The bruteforce algorithm uses threads to scale with the number of
>cores available (unlike fcrackzip) and is written in a way that is
>easily vectorizable by modern compilers.
>
>The library also implements the full plaintext attack described by the
>Biham & Kocher paper (like pkcrack).
>
>Last, a simple dictionary attack is also offered.
>
>As an added bonus, a command line client (yazc, Yet Another Zip
>Cracker) also comes bundled with the library.
>
>So in conclusion, it compares to both fcrackzip and pkcrack, only
>faster, cleaner and more portable.
>
>Benchmark using the zip file from fcrackzip (cpu is an Intel Core i7@
>3GHz):
>
>$ time fcrackzip -b -ca -u noradi.zip
>real 0m18.011s
>user 0m17.972s
>sys 0m0.008s
>
>$ time yazc bruteforce -t8 -a noradi.zip
>real 0m1.962s
>user 0m15.440s
>sys 0m0.012s
>
>libzc was 9x faster in this test than fcrackzip.
>
>I've never packaged anything for Debian so I need a sponsor
>to get this uploaded.
Ping me if needed
Bastien
>
>Regards,
>
>Marc
--
Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma brièveté.
Reply to: