[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080204183616.GA13219@openwall.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 21:36:16 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: faster hash file loading
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 06:17:29PM +0000, helleye wrote:
> if we look @ ldr_load_pw_line
>
> if ((current_pw = db->password_hash[pw_hash]))
...
> if (current_pw) continue;
>
> looks like this one eliminate dupes
Correct.
> but it might cause square square complexity
Yes, it might (worst case), but in practice it doesn't unless the input
file is specially crafted to cause hash collisions with JtR or a custom
*_fmt.c fails to provide a reasonable methods.binary_hash[2]() function.
> so if i can promise there arent dupes in the file
> maybe add a flag -nodupes to the args and then to bypass this check ?
Feel free to experiment with this if you like, but to me this is not
worth the confusion caused by having yet another command line option.
That said, maybe - just maybe - there should be some way to control
whether and when dupes are eliminated, for reasons other than speeding
up the loader.
> reducing complexity to linear
It's very close to being linear anyway, except in special cases
mentioned above.
> saw it does it in a big for (index = 0; index < count; index++) loop
> i hope that i can just bypass this check and it wont hurt nothing else
Yes, you can drop this piece of code, and doing so should not hurt
anything else.
--
Alexander Peslyak <solar at openwall.com>
GPG key ID: 5B341F15 fp: B3FB 63F4 D7A3 BCCC 6F6E FC55 A2FC 027C 5B34 1F15
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
--
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.
