[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:08:56 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: 1.7.9-jumbo-7
magnum, Lukas -
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:50:35AM +0200, magnum wrote:
> On 20 Sep, 2012, at 2:14 , Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> > Lukas, magnum - how come Lukas' phpass optimizations, which Lukas
> > extensively tested prior to CMIYC 2012 (in case we'd be given these
> > hashes in the contest), are not in the fixes branch? I'd like to add
> > them now.
>
> Last patch I saw, he stated "not good enough to be placed in repository", so I didn't:
> http://www.openwall.com/lists/john-dev/2012/08/22/1
Oh, I forgot about that. This messages says 2173K for phpass on HD
7970, but at a huge KPC setting (unreasonable for actual use except on
very few salts). The patch I included in 1.7.9-jumbo-6-fixes+s1.5.diff
that I posted was what Lukas provided to team john-users just before
CMIYC 2012. It achieved around 1750K, but I've since reduced its KPC
(after some testing on actual files), which reduced the speed per --test
to 1714K. The version that we had in jumbo-6 did about 1050K.
Lukas - what do you suggest we include in jumbo-7? I am tempted to keep
the patch currently in 1.7.9-jumbo-6-fixes+s1.5.diff (1714K at phpass,
no change to md5crypt-opencl - that is, it's still awfully slow there).
Why did you say that your patches as posted on August 22 were "not good
enough to be placed in repository"? What exactly is not good enough
about them?
magnum - meanwhile, can you test 1.7.9-jumbo-6-fixes+s1.5.diff's
phpass-opencl with the test suite? I only ran some other tests on it.
Thanks,
Alexander
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.
