Password Dictionary Download Github
Charise Scrivner
You are able to use your own database and password dictionary. Currently the package supports importing dictionaries similar to CrackStation's Password Cracking Dictionary, and has "drivers" for MongoDB, BoltDB, MySQL and PostgreSQL. For a feasible in-memory database see the Bloom filter driver
All of the 3 functionality parts can be used or replaced as it suits your application. In particular you probably do not want to import dictionaries on your webserver, so you can separate that functionality into a separate command.
You can replace the sanitizer with your own when checking passwords. This can be used to reject passwords that match username, email, you site name and similar information you might have on the user. For an example of that, see the Sanitizer interface.
You can use different sanitizers for importing a dictionaries and checking individual passwords. You should run the sanitizer on all passwords before checking or encrypting them for storage, as proposed in the "checking a password" above.
Unless security related issues should show up, the interfaces and functions should not change in this package. If it is impossible to remain compatible, it will always be shown by a compiler error. So if the library compiles after an update it will remain compatible.
You are able to use your own database and password dictionary.Currently the package supports importing dictionaries similar toCrackStation's Password Cracking Dictionary: -crackstation-wordlist-password-cracking-dictionary.htm
You must supply a Tokenizer (see tokenizer package for default tokenizers)that will deliver the passwords,a DbWriter, where the passwords will be sent,and finally a Sanitizer to clean up the passwords -- if you send nil DefaultSanitizer will be used.
Linux uses dm-crypt in order to provide transparent disk or partition encryption. What are the options in case you need to recover passphrase from such encryption? There are already ready-made tools, but we have also produced and published our own in order to support newer LUKS format/ciphers/hashing.
dm-crypt is a transparent disk encryption subsystem in the Linux kernel. It is implemented as a device mapper target and may be stacked on top of other device mapper transformations. It can thus encrypt whole disks (including removable media), partitions, software RAID volumes, logical volumes, as well as files. It appears as a block device, which can be used to back file systems, swap or as an LVM physical volume.
There are many formats or types which dm-crypt/cryptsetup support (current version supports luks, luks1, luks2, plain, loopaes, tcrypt), but the most commons ones are LUKS1 and LUKS2, where LUKS2 is an obviously newer format, which uses argon2i by default. It is a less known fact that cryptsetup supports TrueCrypt/VeraCrypt as well. Here are usual compiled-in defaults of cryptsetup:
In this text, we will focus on cracking the passphrases behind key slots and not attacking the master key itself as that would require much more resources if the master key is generated properly. Once you have a valid passphrase for any of the key slot, it is possible to dump the master key. So, basically having a passphrase is the same as having the master key and attacking the passphrases, in most cases, is the most viable option.
The main problem here is that such cracking is pretty slow, as you have to spawn cryptsetup for each test of the candidate password. You also have to inspect the output of the commands manually in order to check that password was cracked.
John the Ripper has a hard limitations on cipher/hash/mode combinations, so there is a high chance that you will not be able to crack it with John The Ripper. One of the examples when luks2john fails is the following:
In case you get that message from John, and if using LUKS version 1, you will have more luck if you try to crack it by using Hashcat. Hashcat is a bit different to use, but it does have far better and complete support for LUKS cracking than John The Ripper. In order to prepare the target for cracking, you have to dump the LUKS header and add a first sector of payload since hashcat has optimized the cracking, where it does not perform second PBKDF2 which LUKS performs, so cracking is significantly faster using hashcat. Usually, the preparation consist of copying the LUKS header and payload with dd command:
As you can see, speed of cracking LUKS1 on two R9 290x GPUs is around 790 H/s (candidate passwords per seconds). Therefore, cracking is not that fast as some other password/hashing formats.But benchmarking is topic for another article.
Even if LuksHeader4Hashcat cannot help you, check the format and LUKS version of the target to crack with luksDump command.The real problem is that, both hashcat and JtR, support older LUKS1 format, so you would get an error if you try to crack the newer format like LUKS2 (or other uncommon format).In such cases you have to read further in order to recover such passphrase.
Currently, to crack newer or other uncommon formats, it is only possible to use cryptsetup based tools. That means that you have to go back to basic cracking section of this article, and use the shell scripts or binaries that use direct functions from the cryptsetup library.
Once you manage to compile it, you can invoke it by number of threads you want to use and choose different modes of cracking. For example, you can use dictionary mode and read the candidate password from the wordlist or dictionary:
The only issue with bruteforce-luks is that you cannot use John the Ripper and hashcat powerful candidate rule generation as it does not support stdin. Also, I wanted to have an approach where cracking will work under any custom parameter and format that cryptsetup supports. Therefore, an approach was to change the cryptsetup itself minimally to accept multiple tries from standard input (stdin). Such patch was made and you can download and compile original cryptsetup with patch.
It will try each password candidate from the wordlist.txt and report if password is correct. Another helpful way of cracking is by using rexgen, where you can specify password candidates using regular expression (as an example it will generate Test01 to Test99 password candidates):
When using it this way, you can monitor for /tmp/cracked.txt file if cracking was successful. Make sure that cryptsetup have permissions to create file in the directory you plan to write the output to.
Advantage of this method is that you can first test is everything is working before deleting the old passphrase. Still, if you forget to remove the slot, both old and new passphrases will work and therefore will reduce the overall security level of the encryption.
Another good trick is to remove the luks header completely from the partition, in cases when you are forced to provide your key to encrypted data or when your passphrase leaked. Attacker would have a hard time recovering as he does not have encryption methods used and salt. When creating such scenario, you can use following command:
By looking at the hashcat discoveries, it seems that it would be harder for an attacker to backup and remove first sector of the payload itself.Idea is to backup LUKS header and first sectors of the encrypted data to different safe medium:
If you are worried that you will forget your passphrase or your data, it is a good practice to actually backup LUKS header and store it somewhere safe. So, in case of LUKS data corruption - you would still have the most valuable data in recovery - the keys to the encrypted data. Command is:
Another thing that can help during the recovery procedure is backing up the master key. Having the master key allows access to the encrypted data without the knowledge of any passphrase of the slots. You can dump the master key with the --dump-master-key option:
Note that dump-master-key will dump the master key in hex format under MK dump field. Therefore, you need to convert it to the binary format if you plan to use it later with cryptsetup. You can use the following oneliner to create a binary file:
Current limitations of the tools are described as of the date of this blog post. Hopefully, both Hashcat and John The Ripper will get a support for all of the format/hash/cipher combinations that LUKS supports.
In penetration testing, wordlists play a great role. Every good penetration tester will have their own set of wordlists which they use for different purposes. The success of a dictionary-based attack lies in how good the given wordlist is. There can be different wordlists for different purposes. You cannot use a password wordlist in a directory brute-force attack. Similarly, a wordlist meant for SSH brute force cannot be used for web-application login brute force. Hence, it is important to have different wordlists for different purposes.
But what if you need to create your own custom wordlist? In this article, we will see 4 tools that you can use to create your own custom wordlist. Previously I shared an article on how to use Cewl to create a wordlist based on a website.
Crunch is a great tool to generate a wordlist according to your requirement. With this tool, you can give a maximum and minimum length to the password and provide it with a character set for use while creating the wordlist. The minimum and maximum length feature come in handy when you know the password policy of the application you are about to test.
For making such a custom wordlist we will use a tool called Cewl. Cewl is a Ruby program that crawls a URL to a defined depth and produces a list of keywords that can be used as a wordlist. And it is highly effective.
The new password you provided has also been reported as compromised due to re-use of that password on another service by you or someone else. GitHub has not been compromised directly. Your password was not saved. Please choose a stronger password.
GitHub suggest to use a randomly-generated password saved in a password manager. What about people who would prefer a memorable password? In my case, I use several computers and don't possess a smartphone.
c80f0f1006