[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130515201723.GA629@openwall.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 00:17:23 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Incremental mode in 1.7.9.14
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 08:05:17PM +0200, magnum wrote:
> On 14 May, 2013, at 11:09 , Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> >> Despite 1.7.9 (unstable) running 25% slower, it does crack more hashes here. This is with exact same training as bleeding.
> >
> > This is unexpected and troubling - we don't want to be making things
> > worse than what we had before.
>
> Unfortunately further tests seem to show the same.
This is weird. It is inconsistent with previous test results,
including yours:
http://www.openwall.com/lists/john-dev/2013/04/26/12
How do you explain that?
"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 :-)"
Did I break something in the new incremental mode, reducing its
efficiency, after that test? Or was the test or interpretation of its
results somehow wrong?
Can you test with more datasets, not just those same 70k hashes?
Can you add last summer's contest edition to the mix?
Thank you!
Alexander
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.
