Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use MFOC fork from vk496? #15

Open
UltrashRicco opened this issue Aug 22, 2019 · 0 comments
Open

Use MFOC fork from vk496? #15

UltrashRicco opened this issue Aug 22, 2019 · 0 comments

Comments

@UltrashRicco
Copy link

UltrashRicco commented Aug 22, 2019

Hello, I am new to GitHub.

Why not use the MFOC fork from vk496 that implements the hardnested attack and is faster in performing it? I have not encountered a scenario when I could find no solution either. Could the hardnested attack implementation make it into miLazyCracker?

https://github.com/vk496/mfoc

Actually, miLazyCracker and this fork of MFOC seem redundant to me at this point, with miLazyCracker being slower, but there must be an explanation. What are the advantadges of the implementation as seen in miLazyCracker? I guess less resources needed?

On an ARM architecture (Raspberry Pi 3 with Raspbian 32 bits or Kali 64 bits), miLazyCracker is the only tool that will work for me to perform the hardnested attack, as the MFOC fork won't compile, and the Proxmark3 hardnested attack needs more memory than the Raspberry Pi 3 can allocate, so miLazyCracker is still pretty useful.

I just thought it might be improved with a different implementation of the attack?

Thank you,
Regards!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant