Prefix the whole command with a space to avoid dumping your password into your bash history:
" grep `echo -n yourpassword | shasum | cut -c6-40` SHA1.txt"
Ctrl+r history search? I'd tend to maintaining a complete history log so that when I've forgotten the one liner I used to rotate my videos 2 years ago I can easily recall it.
I thought 16k entries might be reasonable but that doesn't even last 3 weeks for me. I think there might have been some issue with slow disk seeks so at some point I restricted it to that many.
I guess it probably it would be better to regularly backup the history file to deal with possible some accidental truncations and issues when running multiple shells concurrently, but probably the overall effort to set up such a system would outweight the benefits.
If you want coverage, generate a few hundred thousand SHA1 hashes along with your password.
Actually, running a trickle query of random SHA1 hashes from your box might be a fun exercise, along with a trickle query of random word tuples (bonus points for using Markov chains to generate statistically probable tuples).
If you search for 'sha1 foo', that's being sent across the network to DDG's servers. And sure, if you're using SSL then it's not going across in plain text, but it's decrypted and handled on their servers in plain text; it'll probably even end up in logs and/or tracking databases somewhere. You're giving DDG your password.
At worst you're giving the attacker a hash target to try brunting. He still has to brute it, and that takes time. Select your plaintext from a large enough keyspace and it's astronomical time.
I'll need to review their policy more closely, but DDG claim fairly minimal tracking. At best someone might be able to correlate hash lookup with some IP space. That's a long way from handing over passwords. And as I already indicated, you could cradled the queries to make the search space much larger.
No, no, no. You're 100% completely misunderstanding this.
When you search for 'sha1 foo', that query ("sha1 foo") goes up to the server. They know your password is "foo" and that you're attempting to "sha1" it. They don't have a hash, they take that data and perform the hash, then send that down to you.
I guess I'm just too damned used to using systems that, you know, have useful tools installed locally (or can get them there really damned fast). Including SHA1 and MD5 hash generators.
And I was all worked up to tell you how wrong you were still being.
All because I couldn't fathom the possibility let alone reason anyone would need a third-party site to compute their hashes for them.
[xargs] allows you to pipe the output of one command as an argument to another command. By default it will show up at the tail end of the second command's arg list, but if you want to interleave it you can use -I flag:
No, he is trying to demonstrate how to use 'xargs node -e'.
Are you even reading this discussion properly or are you just searching for some shell snippets and ridicule them as soon as you get a chance? This is what it looks like from your history: http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=uselessuseof
The perl one liner was funny, the shell one liner was light hearted, but your node solution is just pure fanboyism and quite frankly not in line with the spirit of the two previous posts.
And.. the node.js solution doesn't do what either the Perl or shell one liners do. It doesn't tell you whether the password was found in the file. All it does is print out a SHA1 hash of a string.
I'm surprised at the backlash to what I thought was fun code golfing. No one called me names after I posted a simple Python solution that didn't check the file. For what it's worth I've changed my LI password and I haven't bothered downloading the actual hash file.
node has a neat API for quickly knocking out stuff like this; it's a useful tool for more than just server code. Calling that comment fanboyism is just displaying the opposite of fanboyism, prejudice against hyped-up tools that nevertheless are good tools.
My point still stands. There's funny and then theres blatent fanboyism. You're like a prepubescent teenager who doesn't understand the context of social situations so always says something stupid.
"Which brings us to the most important principle on HN: civility. Since long before the web, the anonymity of online conversation has lured people into being much ruder than they'd dare to be in person. So the principle here is not to say anything you wouldn't say face to face. This doesn't mean you can't disagree. But disagree without calling the other person names. If you're right, your argument will be more convincing without them."
Some people actually do call names to others when face to face.
Personally, while I don't, I do tend to get a little aggressive and then I'm often surprised with the backlash, because I get that way when I'm genuinely enjoying the conversation, not when I'm irritated.
Tone doesn't carry on the Internet, so no one knows you're enjoying it. Hence, it generally degrades the quality of the conversation, which is the opposite of what we want at HN.
No, I'm saying I do that face-to-face, and people still can't tell I'm enjoying it. So the tip to say nothing that you wouldn't say IRL is useless to me; I just can't help it.
