Hash Identifier
Identify a hash format by its prefix or length -- with the matching hashcat mode and John the Ripper format name.
What this tool does
Paste a hash (or several, one per line) and see every plausible
algorithm it could be, based on its prefix,
length and character set — plus, for each candidate, the exact
hashcat -m mode number and
John the Ripper format name you'd actually need to
crack or test it, since looking those up by hand is half the work
when you're starting a CTF challenge or an authorized password
audit.
Why there's often more than one answer
A hash alone doesn't encode which algorithm produced it — a
32-character hex string could be MD5, NTLM, or MD4, since all three
produce a 128-bit digest and MD5/MD4 render identically in hex. This
tool is honest about that: results are split into Most
likely (the hash has a distinctive prefix, like
$2a$ for bcrypt or $argon2id$ for Argon2,
that narrows it to one real answer) and Possible
(the hash only matched by length and character set, so several
algorithms are equally plausible) — never a single falsely
confident guess.
Using the hashcat / John references
Once you know (or suspect) the algorithm, hashcat needs a mode
number (hashcat -m 0 -a 0 hash.txt wordlist.txt for
MD5, for instance) and John the Ripper needs a format name
(--format=raw-md5). Both are shown next to every
candidate that has one, so you don't need a separate lookup table —
this is deliberately the same information Name-That-Hash and hashID
provide, in the same browser tab you're already working in.
Batch mode
Paste several hashes, one per line — a leaked dump, a CTF challenge file, a password list — and each gets identified independently in its own result block.
Privacy and scope
Identification is pure pattern matching against known hash formats — nothing is sent anywhere, and nothing is actually cracked or brute-forced by this tool. It only tells you what a hash probably is, which is the first step before using a real cracking tool like hashcat or John the Ripper, which this tool deliberately is not.