[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:07:20 +0200
From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: relbench/benchmark-unify
On 08/19/2013 07:46 PM, magnum wrote:
> On 19 Aug, 2013, at 9:44 , Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> wrote:
>> My best idea so far is to add a new option to benchmark-unify:
>> --drop-format-labels[=0|=1]
I just implemented this now.
>> Default would be to just drop the format labels which are known to be
>> alternative implementations:
>> *-ng, *-naive, nt2:
I didn't implement this default behavior. I just implemented
--drop-format-labels[=0|=1].
Not specifying --drop-format-labels is the same as
--drop-format-labels=0, --drop-format-labels is the same as
--drop-format-labels=1.
Instead of removing labels based on name patterns, I added 3 mappings:
mschapv2-naive, MSCHAPv2 C/R MSCHAPv2, C/R
netntlm-naive, NTLMv1 C/R netntlm, NTLMv1 C/R
nt2, NT NT
If --drop-labels is used., "netntlm, NTLMv1 C/R" gets converted to
"NTLMv1 C/R".
>> --drop-format-labels=0 would be to keep format labels even for those
>> alternative implementations.
>> --drop-format-labels or --drop-format-labels=1 would mean to drop all
>> format labels, even if this makes "RAdmin, v2.x" a useless format name
I could add conversion rules to change this into "RAdmin v2.x".
But I'd prefer to rethink the format names in a few cases.
I did, however add a single conversions as a short-term workaround:
Drupal7, $S$ (x16385) Drupal 7, $S$ (x16385)
s/Drupal7/Drupal 7/ makes sure it is not detected as a label...
Other format names that might need to be reviewed if relbench -v output
should still print reasonable format names and if we want to avoid
different C/R formats being wrongly detected as different
implementations of the same algorithm (or if we want to be able to
compare CPU implementations and GPU implementations):
Blockchain, My Wallet (x10)
blockchain-opencl, blockchain My Wallet
Clipperz, SRP
Drupal7, $S$ (x16385)
Fortigate, FortiOS
IKE, PSK
MongoDB, system / network
Mozilla, key3.db
MSCHAPv2, C/R
OpenVMS, Purdy
PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA256-opencl, OpenCL
PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA256, rounds=12000
PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA512, GRUB2 / OS X 10.8
PFX, PKCS12 (.pfx, .p12)
PST, custom CRC-32
PuTTY, Private Key
RAdmin, v2.x
Raw-SHA, "SHA-0"
STRIP, Password Manager
WoWSRP, Battlenet
The GPU format name needs to change to WinZip:
zip-opencl, ZIP
ZIP, WinZip
These will never be detected as the same algorithm, because FORMAT_NAME
is empty so that only FORMAT_LABEL is printed:
Raw-SHA512-cuda [SHA512 CUDA (inefficient, development use mostly)]
Raw-SHA512-ng-i [SHA512 128/128 SSE4.1 2x]
Raw-SHA512-ng-opencl, (pwlen < 55) [SHA512 OpenCL (inefficient,
development use mostly)]
Raw-SHA512-ng [SHA512 128/128 SSSE3 2x]
Raw-SHA512-opencl [SHA512 OpenCL (inefficient, development use mostly)]
Raw-SHA512 [SHA512 128/128 SSE4.1 2x]
Is that right, that these are different formats (meaning we have a GPU
implementation without a CPU implementation):
ssha-opencl, Netscape LDAP {SSHA} [SHA1 OpenCL (inefficient, development
use mostly)]
nsldap, Netscape LDAP {SHA} [SHA1 128/128 AVX 4x]
(The test vectors seem to indicate they really differ. I wasn't aware of
formats without a CPU implementation.)
In this case, using passwords of different lengths for benchmarking is
unfortunate:
rar-opencl, RAR3 (6 characters)
rar, RAR3 (4 characters)
While we are at renaming formats: What about s/Office/MS Office/ here?
Office, 2007/2010 (SHA-1) / 2013 (SHA-512), with AES
office2007-opencl, Office 2007 (50,000 iterations)
office2010-opencl, Office 2010 (100,000 iterations)
office2013-opencl, Office 2013 (100,000 iterations)
oldoffice, Office <= 2003
And what about changing M$ to MS here:
mscash2-cuda, M$ Cache Hash 2 (DCC2)
mscash2, M$ Cache Hash 2 (DCC2)
mscash2-opencl, M$ Cache Hash 2 (DCC2)
mscash-cuda, M$ Cache Hash
mscash, M$ Cache Hash
Also, in the --test output we have one CRC-32 and one CRC32.
> I'm not sure. Perhaps another solution is another revision of the names and labels, after coming up with some convention(s).
I hope my comments made some sense, and Solar hadn't something
completely different in mind.
Instead of a patch, I'll attach my new benchmark-unify version.
(As an RFC - If you like the changes, feel free to commit - wuth or
without any adjustments you have in mind.)
Frank
View attachment "benchmark-unify" of type "text/plain" (11599 bytes)
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.
