Codetective - find password hashes and CC numbers

[apolkosnik-old]

Service using a tool to determine the crypto/encoding algorithm used according to traces from its representation

[apolkosnik-old]

Can I ask for a quick review of this? It provides a really nice way to find hashes, credit card numbers, UIDs, and cookies. Thanks in advance.

[mgoffin]

Not sure I'm a fan of requiring a git clone into a directory in a git clone (accidental commits of this if someone pushes a PR with a new feature can happen).

Is there any way to design this such that it doesn't require it to be cloned into crits_services and can exist somewhere else?

[apolkosnik]

copy will suffice
On Feb 27, 2015 11:19 AM, "Mike Goffin" notifications@github.com wrote:

Not sure I'm a fan of requiring a git clone into a directory in a git
clone (accidental commits of this if someone pushes a PR with a new feature
can happen).

Is there any way to design this such that it doesn't require it to be
cloned into crits_services and can exist somewhere else?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#75 (comment).

[apolkosnik-old]

Updated the install instructions

[mgoffin]

I guess I should be more clear.

There shouldn't be any copying/installing/cloning/etc of any files into what is potentially a repository, such as crits_services.

[apolkosnik-old]

Ok, I got a go-ahead from the author, and will add what's needed shortly.

[apolkosnik-old]

Ok, how about now?

[mgoffin]

I took a look at the Codetective stuff and evidently it's just a standalone script with no way to install it (i was really hoping this could just be done via pip install). I really don't like having code like this the way it is. It means if a new Codetective version comes out you have to release a new service version as opposed to just updating your codetective stuff and it "just working".

And with it being GPL and being housed under an MIT licensed service, I could swear there's some special disclaimer you need to make somewhere about something.

[apolkosnik-old]

I was trying to avoid the whole LICENSE ordeal by just allowing the users to git-clone that thing into their service folder... and it would have just worked between the updates. Either way, I can backpedal this whole thing or ask the author to jump in here and ask if he'd be willing to relicense or something.

[apolkosnik-old]

Is it any better now? I'm asking the users to grab the GPL part themselves, and it's basically a single script that they can update without updating the service.