[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86324d383b939292ef997a2369c32ba3@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:24:43 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: [patch] optional new raw sha1 implemetation
Nice, you boosted it by 13% on my core2 laptop. You need to re-add some
#ifdef (apart from __GNUC__) for building this, now that the __SSE4_1__
is gone. I'm not sure what is the requiremtent now, just __SSE2__ perhaps?
magnum
On 2012-06-17 14:23, Tavis Ormandy wrote:
> Hey magnum, I implemented one of Simon's suggestions, as well as your
> fixes, and some other minor performance adjustments like an XMM bswap
> and using a lookup table instead of a branch in set_key().
>
> Simon suggested requesting more than 4 passwords at a time, then
> buffering them to reduce the overhead of multiple function calls. That sounds
> like a nice easy performance win, and from testing around 128 seems to be the
> right number to request on my machine (i tried powers of two up to 8192, and
> 256 wins).
>
> Current HEAD:
>
> $ time ../run/john --format=rawsha1_sse4 passwords
> Loaded 1 password hash (Raw SHA-1 [taviso sse4])
> madmda16 (?)
> guesses: 1 time: 0:00:01:30 DONE (Sun Jun 17 13:41:17 2012) c/s: 9429K trying: madmda11 - madmda16
> Use the "--show" option to display all of the cracked passwords reliably
>
> real 1m30.985s
> user 1m30.596s
> sys 0m0.064s
>
> With Simon's idea @256:
>
> $ rm ../run/john.pot; time ../run/john --format=rawsha1_sse4 passwords
> Loaded 1 password hash (Raw SHA-1 [taviso sse4])
> madmda16 (?)
> guesses: 1 time: 0:00:01:19 DONE (Sun Jun 17 13:56:51 2012) c/s: 10843K trying: madmduft - madmdr93
> Use the "--show" option to display all of the cracked passwords reliably
>
> real 1m19.122s
> user 1m18.554s
> sys 0m0.091s
>
> Not bad!
>
> I've also written an alternative to the SSE4 compare, it's slower on my
> machine, but not by much, so you can use it even if you don't have SSE4.
>
> I'll try to send you a pull request, but I've never used github before,
> so please forgive me if I get it wrong.
>
> Tavis.
>
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:06:26AM +0200, magnum wrote:
>> Blimey, you are correct. How long has it been this way?? I'll fix them.
>>
>> magnum
>>
>>
>> On 2012-06-17 03:56, jfoug wrote:
>>> Dyna 12 is NOT correct. Any raw-sha1 format doing that is wrong. It should
>>> be dyna_26
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I now replaced it with strrchr() as it's working on a string anyway. I
>>>> also added the $dynamic_12$ tag other raw SHA1 formats use. And the
>>>> format announced FMT_SPLIT_UNIFIES_CASE which was not correct until now.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
