[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <loom.20060721T092428-931@post.gmane.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:29:17 +0000 (UTC)
From: Phantom <phantom_otw@...oo.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Compiling jtr in Ubuntu64?
> "It won't execute" is a totally non-informative problem report. You
> should have copy&pasted a few lines from your Linux shell session
> showing the command you typed (trying to invoke the newly built John)
> and the output you received (from which you concluded that it "won't
> execute"). May I point you right to the first question/answer on the
> FAQ, though? -
>
> http://www.openwall.com/john/doc/FAQ.shtml
>
> Did it help? If not, then please report the problem properly as I've
> explained above.
Yes, it did help. Thank you kindly, Sir.
And apologize for not reading the FAQ ..guess knowing JTR well in windows made
me kinda "forget" that using it in Linux might be different commandwise.
> > Secondly, while running "make generic", I noticed that it did some
> >benchmarks while running... why does it do that? ...Is it to test which
> >code is best suited for my CPU and OS?
>
> Yes. It limits those tests to plain C code, though. It does not try to
> figure out your architecture and pick one of the assembly files.
Ok.
Regarding the benchmarks I get on Ubuntu64 ...I find them rather startling
when comparing to the benchmarks I get in windows:
Ubuntu64>
Benchmarking: Traditional DES [128/128 BS SSE2-16]... DONE
Many salts: 12292K c/s real, 7334K c/s virtual
Only one salt: 11313K c/s real, 6755K c/s virtual
Benchmarking: BSDI DES (x725) [128/128 BS SSE2-16]... DONE
Many salts: 452905 c/s real, 270447 c/s virtual
Only one salt: 453722 c/s real, 270613 c/s virtual
Benchmarking: FreeBSD MD5 [32/64 X2]... DONE
Raw: 109733 c/s real, 65604 c/s virtual
Benchmarking: OpenBSD Blowfish (x32) [32/64]... DONE
Raw: 5042 c/s real, 3010 c/s virtual
Benchmarking: Kerberos AFS DES [48/64 4K]... DONE
Short: 3748K c/s real, 2231K c/s virtual
Long: 11644K c/s real, 6953K c/s virtual
Benchmarking: NT LM DES [128/128 BS SSE2-16]... DONE
Raw: 100972K c/s real, 60246K c/s virtual
Windows>
Benchmarking: Traditional DES [128/128 BS SSE2]... DONE
Many salts: 1290K c/s
Only one salt: 1159K c/s
Benchmarking: BSDI DES (x725) [128/128 BS SSE2]... DONE
Many salts: 43444 c/s
Only one salt: 42342 c/s
Benchmarking: FreeBSD MD5 [32/32]... DONE
Raw: 8112 c/s
Benchmarking: OpenBSD Blowfish (x32) [32/32]... DONE
Raw: 492 c/s
Benchmarking: Kerberos AFS DES [48/64 4K MMX]... DONE
Short: 203280 c/s
Long: 721618 c/s
Benchmarking: NT LM DES [128/128 BS SSE2]... DONE
Raw: 8371K c/s
Why are the linux64 DES benchmarks 10 times better then the windows ones?
Real live decrypting doesn't really seem to be faster - atleast not 10 times
faster than on windows...
Regards
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail john-users-unsubscribe@...ts.openwall.com and reply
to the automated confirmation request that will be sent to you.
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.
