john-dev - Re: revised incremental mode and charset files (was: Bleeding-jumbo branch updated from core)

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130427010026.GA30904@openwall.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 05:00:26 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: revised incremental mode and charset files (was: Bleeding-jumbo branch updated from core)

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:27:36PM +0200, magnum wrote:
> BTW I did some really quick'n'dirty tests comparing unstable and bleeding at exact same conditions (0x7e and 15, trained from rockyou and attacking a real dataset of 70,000 raw-md5 hashes for 60 seconds). Unstable was 1.5% faster in terms of c/s but bleeding cracked 2.5% more passwords despite that, from picking better candidates earlier. And that was before these latest changes :-)

Thank you for testing this!  I've just committed some further fixes to
charset.c and inc.c, so can you merge these and re-test?  I don't expect
any surprises, but more testing won't hurt.

Also, can you (or/and anyone else) test interrupting/restoring with the
new incremental mode?  Make sure it cracks the same passwords as a
non-interrupted session would.  Make sure it doesn't take significantly
more time than a non-interrupted session would.  1 second lost per
interrupt/restore is OK, more is suspicious.

Thanks again,

Alexander

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.