[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:11:47 -0800
From: Alain Espinosa <alainesp@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: binary hashes and BINARY_SIZE
On 3/29/11, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> ... moving some code from cmp_one() to cmp_exact(). Alain? Many
> other "formats" are similarly not optimized in this respect. Not that I
> care much (with modern RAM sizes), but Alain started to compare memory
> usage of different tools here:
> http://www.hashsuite.webuda.com/index.php?p=1_6 ;-)
> JtR's memory usage at NTLM will grow by 4 MB or 8 MB with the large hash
> tables patch, but we can reduce it by 8 MB or 12 MB with the BINARY_SIZE
> optimization.
I make a rapid read and do not fully understand how john works. When i
have some free time i read again and change the NTLM behavior. I think
this 'john internal documentation' is very useful for john developers
when starting a new format. Add it to the wiki or a 'How to support a
new format'?
I think memory usage/managment make an appreciable influence in
performance which a large number of hashes.
saludos,
alain
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.
