[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FD51056.6070407@banquise.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 23:23:34 +0200
From: Simon Marechal <simon@...quise.net>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Patch: allow --markov=SECTION in addition to --markov[=[MIN_LEVEL-]LEVEL[:START[:END[:[MIN_LENGHT-]LENGTH]]]]
On 06/10/2012 08:51 PM, Frank Dittrich wrote:
> I could understand if all these examples would produce the same number
> of words. I would just have assumed that you don't want to check for
> each single word whether the required number of words has been created.
> But then, all these examples should have created 11 or 12 words.
>
> Do I have to dig into the source code if I want to find out what's going on?
Actually this is the only way I found to achieve a decent speed. If you
compute each password using the proper algorithm, you will have to
compute each words letters at every step. By using a recursive generator
it achieves much better performance, but it only realises it should stop
when it goes out of some loop. This means it produces more passwords
than expected at the beginning and end of the runs. It SHOULD only be
hundreds of passwords too much, and SHOULD NOT be less passwords than
expected. I thought about this when I wrote it, but I am not so
confident today ;)
As for the reason I don't use N+1, it is just that because of the
previous problem it does not make any difference.
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.
