[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP300C72673249D998E685FBBFD140@phx.gbl>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:03:22 +0100
From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Supporting different hash algorithms with a single
format?
On 01/24/2013 10:44 AM, Dhiru Kholia wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Frank Dittrich
> <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
The question is not if the jumbo-8 implementation is faster than jumbo-7
(may be due to OMP support) or not, but whether the different algorithms
currently implemented in jumbo-8 should have separate benchmark numbers,
because they will very likely be different.
If there should be several PDF formats instead of just one, I suggest
doing the change before releasing jumbo-8.
(No need to split this into different source files or to create
different object files.
Just one file which defines 2 format structures (using different test
vectors, slightly different valid() functions, and reusing everything
that's similar enough is OK.)
FRank
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.
