[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <08043ca7ff5ed6b5f0de65d41791813d@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 20:36:36 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Which is the correct hash?
On 2016-08-30 11:16, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:37:06PM +0200, magnum wrote:
>> On 2016-08-29 21:00, Sebastian Heyn wrote:
>>> -> the pkzip hash brutes at 19k/sec
>>> -> the pkzip2 hash brutes at 100/sec (--fork=32 gives x32 speed)
>
>> A more specific answer for your case is that the difference in speed you
>> mention MAY be due to the older version defaulting to "file magic"
>> whereas the newer does not.
>
> Aren't both speeds way lower than expected, though? The pkzip format
> normally benchmarks in the millions. I guess I am missing something.
According to Sebastian's mail this morning, the only usable file for
attacking is a fairly large one (16 MB) and we may need to CRC all of it
for each guess. That's why speed is hit and this is what the "file
magic" stuff could possibly work around.
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.
