[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3b9ed5406eed319155f4d7724f5540ec@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:08:52 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: get_source() and bitmaps boost
On 06/07/2012 09:17 AM, Frank Dittrich wrote:
> On 06/07/2012 01:44 AM, magnum wrote:
>> I got the idea to use the 6.5 million leaked hashes for some speed&
>> memory tests. All tests consist of running --incremental=digits to
>> completion, with all those candidates already cracked (so crack prints
>> does not slow things down).
>
> Which hardware and which build target did you use?
> (I assume you are using a recent x86_64 ubuntu. Am I right?)
> How much memory does the system have?
Just my good ol' core2duo laptop. 4 GB, 3 MB cache.
>> Memory usage (RSS peak):
>> magnum-jumbo: 875 MB
>> magnum-jumbo w/ get_source added: 530 MB
>> bleeding-jumbo: 674 MB
>> bleeding-jumbo w/ get_source reverted: 1 GB
>>
>> Bleeding is 43% faster than magnum-jumbo because of these two changes,
>> mostly because of the bitmaps. One way to put it is that the get_source
>> patch regains all memory the bitmaps use, and much more. And it boosts
>> bleeding-jumbo by another 6%.
>
> This also means, that you probably could use a password list that is
> about 1.6 times the size that can be used with magnum-jumbo, if you
> apply the get_source patch.
> (Memory usage is about 1.65 times as high without the patch, but for the
> attack (wordlist / incremental / ...) you'll also need some memory.)
Maybe, but this depends on the format. For raw SHA-1 I think we save 53
bytes of memory per loaded hash. For raw MD5 it's 44 bytes (ie. it's the
ASCII hex hash + tag + null byte). But then I suppose we need to
subtract sizeof(char*) from that figure, or something like that.
> On which platforms did you run the test suite for magnum-jumbo with the
> get_source patch applied and for bleeding-jumbo?
> Which platforms need to be tested?
I run amd64 Linux platforms. Jim runs Win32. In general (not specific to
get_source) we need testing on Mac and Sparc at least.
> What other tests could help finding any hidden bugs?
> (Running real cracking sessions against "real" hashes, and compare the
> results? What else?)
I do not expect get_source to be any more buggy than any other part of
the tree now. It's straight-forward code and we ironed it out in a
couple of days. The bugs that was mentioned on the list a couple of
weeks ago was *during* development and we haven't had to change a thing
since Jim nailed the salt stuff. But the more testing in various ways,
the better. We need to test everything now anyway, for upcoming Jumbo.
Formats that has get_source() are currently: crc32, nt, nt2, raw-md5,
raw-sha1, raw-sha1_li and sapg, plus some or all dynamic formats, I
presume all of them. Other formats are even more unlikely to be affected
by any problems from the new code.
magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
