[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7b3298150511130047s75d5a954ha291bcabea404986@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 09:47:14 +0100
From: thomas springer <thomas.springer@...il.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: output tested hashes
> Why do you think that would let you speed things up? Precomputation?
> It doesn't work like that.
jup, precomputation, rainbowtables for the poor, if you like.
i'd like to have a few million "standard"-hashes with fixed salts, eg.
lm-hashes ready for lookup.
> It's not as simple as that. John does not produce the ASCII-encoded
yea, i should have known that it's not that simple!
> The good news is that you _really_ shouldn't need those hashes. ;-)
i'm short on processor-time...
i recovered the ancient ntcrack to compute and list lm-hashes - it
worked, slower, but fine!
now I'm goin to compare the processorload for a lookup with john -wordlost... :)
thanks for the reply
--
thomas.springer@...il.com
[nach mir der synflood.]
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.
