[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <B21CFC73-A070-434A-82CC-62CA1F55B6CC@patpro.net>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 09:26:18 +0100
From: Patrick Proniewski <patpro@...pro.net>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: to Single or not to Single
On 04 févr. 2017, at 21:33, Solar Designer wrote:
> That said, I think it'd be even better to figure out and fix whatever
> issue is causing the extremely poor performance, and then you won't have
> to worry about those extra candidates being tested - in fact, you'd want
> more of them to be tested.
I do agree.
I've made another test, that probably compares with the --test function. I've ran this:
time ./john --single=None --nolog --verbosity=1 aa-postsingle --pot=dummy3.pot
Using default input encoding: UTF-8
Loaded 1395762 password hashes with 1395762 different salts (dynamic_25 [sha1($s.$p) 128/128 AVX 4x1])
Press 'q' or Ctrl-C to abort, almost any other key for status
0g 0:00:00:03 50.00% (ETA: 21:44:44) 0g/s 0p/s 0c/s 0C/s
0g 0:00:00:04 50.00% (ETA: 21:44:46) 0g/s 407283p/s 407283c/s 407283C/s messershre
0g 0:00:00:04 DONE (2017-02-04 21:44) 0g/s 477983p/s 477983c/s 477983C/s rolltide1!..rrolltide1!
Session completed
real 0m13.070s
user 0m10.627s
sys 0m2.391s
where "aa-postsingle" is a file containing only hashes remaining after the end of a --single=None run. To sum it up, it contains only hashes that wont be cracked by the given candidate. No super-fast, but really good compared to files with a mix of good and bad candidates.
So it looks like it's really the mix of good and bad candidates that impact performance.
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.
