[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANO7a6wPXAFz9x-iT5XtW=pbw6aX3yuvCcwrhY+Yc1QanDZ7tA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:14:41 +0530
From: Dhiru Kholia <dhiru.kholia@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Supporting different hash algorithms with a single format?
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Frank Dittrich
<frank_dittrich@...mail.com> wrote:
> On 01/04/2013 03:34 PM, magnum wrote:
>> On 4 Jan, 2013, at 13:08 , Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> wrote:
>>> What do you think? Should separate hash algorithms be supported by
>>> different formats, instead of mixing different hash algorithms into the
>>> same format?
> Also, what about PDF?
>
> Apparently, the jumbo-8 version gained OMP support, plus support for
> additional algorighms.
>
> But if I compare the virtual c/s rates, it looks like the top two test
> cases refer to the algorithm which has been supported in jumbo-7.
>
> Is the performance of the different PDF algorithms more or less the
> same, so that it would be OK to map "PDF MD5 RC4" to "PDF MD5 SHA-2 RC4
> / AES" in benchmark-unify?
> Or should these be separate formats?
IMO, these should be separate formats. The newer pdf format being
slightly faster, OMP friendly and less buggy than the older one.
--
Dhiru
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.
