[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091227181314.GA4633@openwall.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:13:14 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: JtR 1.7.4 and jumbo patch update
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 07:00:55PM +0100, websiteaccess@...il.com wrote:
> JTR 1.7.3.4 (with patches john-1.7.3.4-jumbo-1.diff +
> john-1.7.3.4-jimf-after-jumbo-2.diff)
[...]
> JTR 1.7.4 (with patch john-1.7.4-jumbo-1.diff)
> wordlist : 536875 words, same hashlist : 2 millions, same rules [mine]
> (john.conf from 1.7.3.4), same computer.
>
> ==> guesses: 1422 time: 0:00:30:07 0% c/s: 269205M
>
> Winnner: 1.7.3.4 patched. ( guesses: 4768 )
> -----------: 1.7.4 patched ( guesses: 1422 )
There was no doubt about that. You had previously demonstrated that
Jim's patch provided a huge speedup for your use pattern (lots of raw
MD5 hashes, wordlist with rules). The changes in 1.7.4 did not attempt
to replace nor duplicate Jim's, so they were also not expected to
outperform the previous version with Jim's changes for your use pattern.
(On the other hand, when there's a patch including Jim's changes on top
of 1.7.4, there will likely be some additional speedup.)
In a sense, you're comparing apples to oranges. A reasonable test would
be 1.7.3.4 without any patches vs. 1.7.4 without any patches. Another
reasonable test, and one that would actually work for raw MD5, would be
1.7.3.4-jumbo-2 vs. 1.7.4-jumbo-1. No JimF patch! Yes, they would be a
lot slower than what you're getting with Jim's patch now, but they would
give you an idea of the effect of the changes between 1.7.3.4 and 1.7.4 -
that is, whether you could expect some speedup later on (when Jim's
changes are properly updated for 1.7.4) or not.
Thanks,
Alexander
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.
