[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bfaac823492255f6c601866d3154402c@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 18:37:29 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Incremental mode in 1.7.9.14
On 19 May, 2013, at 18:22 , Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 10:04:12PM +0200, Simon Marechal wrote:
>> This might be controversial, but I believe that "early" efficiency is
>> meaningless for that kind of generator. Every sane person will run some
>> kind of dictionary based attack before resorting to incremental.
>>
>> I will run tests comparing all versions against my "hard" list of
>> plaintexts to check this use case.
>
> I think the "early" efficiency is not meaningless, but is in fact less
> important than efficiency on relatively stronger passwords (after having
> the weakest ones cracked by other means).
>
> Luckily, your test results (provided off-list) indicate that the new
> code (the latest patch) performs well on your "hard" passwords as well.
How do we define "early"? Guessing something after 20 biljon tries is a couple of hours for raw-md5 but 300 years for pbkdf2-hmac-sha512 :-)
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.
