[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:00:41 +0200
From: magnum <rawsmooth@...dband.net>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: RE: New pkzip format [Moved to 'onlist' ]
On 2011-09-09 01:33, JimF wrote:
> From: "magnum" <rawsmooth@...dband.net>
>> NT went from 27M c/s down to 18M c/s from the more work put in bench.c.
>
> I realize that non-salted (and 1 salt) runs are going to be slowed down,
> from what the default is. However, on this machine, what is the 'true'
> speed you see, if using one of the faster methods, like inc:alnum,
> -inc:alpha, etc? I bet the 'real' performance is much closer to 18M than
> it is to 27M :)
I thought so too but thats's not really it. However, NT is so fast it
really gets hit by incremental mode "shifting gears" (which gets less
frequent the longer you run it) so it's hard to tell what is a 'true'
figure. Attacking one single, unbreakable, NT hash, I exhaust
-inc:digits in seconds with a "low" figure:
guesses: 0 time: 0:00:00:05 DONE c/s: 21408K trying: 83536787 - 83536784
Running -inc:alpha, the reported speed exceeds that immediately:
guesses: 0 time: 0:00:00:49 0.52% c/s: 22908K trying: hclkcubb - hclkcuje
guesses: 0 time: 0:00:01:26 0.92% c/s: 23198K trying: sosfcfor - sosfcfea
guesses: 0 time: 0:00:01:57 1.26% c/s: 23263K trying: kiaddhbo - kiaddpan
guesses: 0 time: 0:00:02:25 1.57% c/s: 23455K trying: casebbei - casebmmn
And running plain -inc it's soon near 24M:
guesses: 0 time: 0:00:03:37 0.00% c/s: 23659K trying: 23apjoee - 23apjomu
guesses: 0 time: 0:00:04:17 0.00% c/s: 23837K trying: rhtsduli - rhtsdut1
guesses: 0 time: 0:00:04:34 0.00% c/s: 23904K trying: dipbaye - dipbifl
guesses: 0 time: 0:00:06:11 0.00% c/s: 23919K trying: s7mabE - s7max@
guesses: 0 time: 0:00:07:51 0.00% c/s: 23998K trying: bweghy16 - bweghy22
I don't think we should change the benchmark for this case at all, just
add another "mode" for use with formats like yours.
By the way, here are two crafted benchmarks, the first using a fixed
speed test password of one character, the second using the max. 27 chars:
Benchmarking: NT MD4 [128/128 X2 SSE2-16]... DONE
Raw: 32799K c/s real, 33130K c/s virtual
Benchmarking: NT MD4 [128/128 X2 SSE2-16]... DONE
Raw: 18652K c/s real, 18840K c/s virtual
The format is so fast that the length of plaintexts is a significant
parameter. I noticed this before when NT got more self-tests.
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.
