Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 15:31:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Brad Tilley" <brad@...ystems.com>
To: "Solar Designer" <solar@...nwall.com>
Cc: "Brad Tilley" <brad@...ystems.com>,
 john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Brute Force TrueCrypt Headers

> Brad -
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 03:11:37PM -0400, Brad Tilley wrote:
>> Mine does about 50 passwords a second, but it's not optimized to crack
>> passwords. I have a bit in the FAQ about that: http://16s.us/TCHead/faq/
>>
>> A multi-threaded or multi-process attack should do more than that.
>
> Thanks for the prompt response.
>
> Shortly after I sent the message, it occurred to me that TrueCrack's 15
> p/s might be for just one thread, too.
>
> The screenshot you have at http://16s.us/TCHead/ shows Serpent and
> Whirlpool instead of RIPEMD-160 and AES, which are apparently the
> default.  Is this just to show that TCHead supports non-default settings
> as well?  Is the 50 p/s speed for RIPEMD-160 and AES (thus directly
> comparable to TrueCrack's)?
>
> Alexander
>

I would think that per core the software would be at least as fast as a
single process of TCHead running on one core or close to it. Not sure
though as I've not looked at their code. Yes on the 50 p/s statement. That
screenshot just happened to be on a volume that used that particular hash
and cipher.

TCHead gets that rate (50 p/s) on any hash and any single cipher. I've not
gotten around to implementing multiple ciphers yet. That would slow things
down quite a bit I expect, perhaps this other software does that and that
explains the difference?

Brad

Brad

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ