[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ee4de8c360fb122e8817259e50030540@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 23:46:48 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: minor optimisation in raw-sha1-ng
On 11 Dec, 2012, at 21:09 , Tavis Ormandy <taviso@...xchg8b.com> wrote:
> Hey magnum, a colleague pointed out an obvious optimisation I was
> missing. It's very minor but obviously correct, I sent you a pull
> request.
Thanks, I obviously committed it although the normal variation between benchmarks seem to outsize the boost ;-)
Have you had any look at Atom's findings btw?
https://hashcat.net/p12/
AFAICT it's only applicable for dumb BF *) and naturally only for raw SHA1. This make it a lot less interesting. Nevertheless he did a good job. I haven't been able to find any info on whether it's currently implemented in hashCat or not?
*) OK, it could also be a mask mode modulating the first four characters, as long as we're talking W[0]. And one could probably target any of W[1]..W[13] instead.
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.
