Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
Edit viewresults.html
after line 443: add this:
$pattern =~ s/^(.){4}/xxx/g; #wlb
so it will look like this:
my $type = $$results[0];
my $pattern = $$results[1];
$pattern =~ s/^(.){4}/xxx/g; #wlb
my $file = $$results[2];
my $offset = $$results[3];
my $md5 = $$results[4];
my $number = $$results[5];
that masks the first 4 digits with three X's...
alter to taste.
Original comment by atarib...@gmail.com
on 3 May 2010 at 6:02
OK Excellent thanks for the quick reply -
When I get it fired-up I'll give that adjustment a try.
Thanks again.
Original comment by tom...@gmail.com
on 3 May 2010 at 7:35
I plan to fix this in version 0.2 by only showing the first four and last six
numbers
of any potential credit cards. I could also do this for SSNs.
Perhaps a better, long-term solution would be to have an option to mask the
first 75%
of all found patterns, regardless of what kind of pattern it finds.
Original comment by andrew.O...@gmail.com
on 3 May 2010 at 10:52
First off found this via the slashdot article.... Would it be a better way to
limit
who role wise could see the whole SSN or CCN?
Example: level 1 tech would only see there was X number of violations and would
escalate the incident to a higher level person who could see all of the
violations?
Original comment by jje...@gmail.com
on 4 May 2010 at 2:07
found this off of darknet reading.
issue: is it necessary to copy the found data and stream it out, there by
creating
another instance of it to maintain?
suggestion: would it be enough to flag and count the pattern matches along with
a
pointer to trace back to source?
Original comment by dkrish...@gmail.com
on 4 May 2010 at 4:53
I will mask found data in version 0.2, which should be out within two weeks (I
am
making other enhancements and fixing bugs, too).
Tracing to the source is a good idea, I could implement that in version 0.3.
Original comment by andrew.O...@gmail.com
on 4 May 2010 at 5:00
Original comment by andrew.O...@gmail.com
on 4 May 2010 at 5:05
Fixed in release 0.2.
Original comment by andrew.O...@gmail.com
on 12 May 2010 at 11:14
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
tom...@gmail.com
on 3 May 2010 at 3:51