full-disclosure - Re: NiX - Linux Brute Forcer (the beast) has been released!]]

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <EF3D6474-C2AF-44F6-8FC2-7AD2AB5108EB@mtu.edu>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:31:44 -0500 (EST)
From: rdsears@....edu
To: "nix@...roxylists.com" <nix@...roxylists.com>
Cc: "full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: NiX - Linux Brute Forcer (the beast) has been
	released!]]

In all fairness I do use proxychains for all of my proxy randomization and all that kind of stuff if I need it. That way it's consistent regardless of what I throw at it, even tools without random proxy chaining like nmap and hydra.

Good job coding it though, I can't imagine that was easy.
Ryan

On Nov 13, 2010, at 3:36 PM, nix@...roxylists.com wrote:

>> Le vendredi 12 novembre 2010 Ã  21:47 +0200, nix@...roxylists.com a
>> Ã©crit :
>>> Where is for example FORM auto-detection for those
>>> other tools? Where is SOCKS4 proxy support? Where is proxy
>>> randomization?
>>> Where is logic to drop dead proxies? Where is logic for
>>> fake-detection?
>> 
>> Then, you should have started by that, it is that simple.
>> We are all busy and you can't expect anyone to even have a look on your
>> tool or link if you don't highlight how different it is from others or
>> why you did it.
>> 
>> As far as I am concerned, these features may be nice, but I don't need
>> them and will stick to Medusa for the brute force tests I run from time
>> to time (ie not often, a few times a year at most).
>> But, to make it clear, it is just my personal opinion, I am not saying
>> that your tool is not interesting or useless.
>> 
>> 
> 
> I just gave a test-run for Hydra against my own site and noticed:
> 
> It does support only single proxy, any site that has even a bit protection
> will defeat it. NiX does support HTTP/SOCKS4/SOCKS5 (as much as you have
> working proxies) with randomization etc. This is significant advantage
> over any other tool.
> 
> I have worked 1.5 months constantly on NiX, after i have had a little
> break. I will implement support for other major protocols which is now
> really easy after having otherwise working engine.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/