[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+TsHUDs9noZRbajL95HPicqCSiyq_vKumY=9gD-rEDoBOnZqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 08:59:26 +0530
From: Sayantan Datta <std2048@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Sayantan's Weekly Report #7
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Lukas Odzioba <lukas.odzioba@...il.com>wrote:
> Isn't it just a normal use case scenario?
> I guess cracking <100 hashes is quite rare.
>
> Do you have any ideas how to improve it?
> Other tools seems to not have such problems.
>
Loading large number of hashes means that it takes more time to check those
hashes rather than generating them. I have few plans such as using local
memory to store as many hashes as possible, should easily store 2048 hashes
or even more depending on how many bytes per hash is being stored. Then
cache them on the fly if more hashes are loaded than what could be stored
in local memory. Or use the global memory entirely because caching will
have some overhead too.
Regards,
Sayantan
Content of type "text/html" skipped
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.
