[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <872A984F-D849-4428-8A92-D2855A8A873C@patpro.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 16:46:14 +0100
From: patpro@...pro.net
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: John does not fork as many times as I want
hi,
On 4 nov. 2016, at 16:13, matlink <matlink@...link.fr> wrote:
>> Your guess is wrong. "--restore" is more than that, and it is usually
>> much more efficient than starting over with the same parameters.
>>
>> However, since you were getting forked processes not started or killed,
>> you did in fact have to start over not to miss any weak passwords.
>
> Alright. Is starting over meaning re-testing the whole potfile against
> the hashed pwd? The said potfile is about 670MB, then is not using
> --restore having a huge impact about performances? What if that file
> were much more huge, like 50GB?
Even if you don't use restore, a hash file will always be compared to your pot file, to get rid of already cracked hashes.
Using restore means you restart where you left. If you try a mask attack with ?d?d?d?d (0000 to 9999), halt at the middle (say 5555), using restore will restart the cracking session at ~5555.
As for the huge pot file, I've come to the conclusion that it can be better to keep not-too-huge pot file, and in some case to dedicate one pot file per hash type. But it's my personal experience…
You might want to use john --show=left > remaining-hash when you change attack modes (or masks, or wordlists…), the resulting file is smaller and pre-formatted so that it'll load way faster than original dump.
regards,
patpro
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.
