john-users - Re: output tested hashes

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 09:47:14 +0100
From: thomas springer <thomas.springer@...il.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: output tested hashes

> Why do you think that would let you speed things up?  Precomputation?
> It doesn't work like that.

jup, precomputation, rainbowtables for the poor, if you like.
i'd like to have a few million "standard"-hashes with fixed salts, eg.
lm-hashes ready for lookup.

> It's not as simple as that.  John does not produce the ASCII-encoded

yea, i should have known that it's not that simple!

> The good news is that you _really_ shouldn't need those hashes. ;-)

i'm short on processor-time...
i recovered the ancient ntcrack to compute and list lm-hashes - it
worked, slower, but fine!

now I'm goin to compare the processorload for a lookup with john -wordlost... :)

thanks for the reply

--
thomas.springer@...il.com
[nach mir der synflood.]