[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <71efdc2a811b03e2f0e0e507dfb6e335@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 01:29:59 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: best setup to crack format nt or nt2
On 21/09/15 01:07, Rich Rumble wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Patrick Proniewski <patpro@...pro.net> wrote:
>> I've made some tests already: LM hash is unused, the other hash is recognized as nt and nt2. Is there any difference between those too formats? Apparently, I can use either --format=nt or --format=nt2 with same results.
>
> http://www.openwall.com/lists/john-users/2012/11/15/12
Right, use whatever format benchmarks fastest.
For the record, in latest code on GitHub (next release) they are renamed
so the nt2 is now "NT" and the older NT format is "NT-old". The reason
for this is that the former supports AVX2 and higher and then becomes
significantly faster than the latter.
magnum
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.
