[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:21:50 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: NTLM patch performance
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 09:51:58PM -0800, Alain Espinosa wrote:
> Celeron 3.00GHz, the test was 10 min long.
You've made sure that not a single hash got cracked during those 10
minutes, correct?
Also, since JtR "incremental" mode's overhead decreases over time,
10 minutes is in fact the reasonable minimum duration of such a
benchmark.
> Program 1 hash 10 hash
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> john_v1.7 nt_patch 1244K 1181K
The number for 10 hashes is JtR's reported effective c/s divided by 10,
correct?
> ppa_v1.70 4370K 4600K
> saminside_v2.5.7.1 11360K 5255K
...and what are the numbers for Simon's MMX/SSE2-enhanced NTLM support
patch? I'd expect something like 5000K.
--
Alexander Peslyak <solar at openwall.com>
GPG key ID: 5B341F15 fp: B3FB 63F4 D7A3 BCCC 6F6E FC55 A2FC 027C 5B34 1F15
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail john-users-unsubscribe@...ts.openwall.com and reply
to the automated confirmation request that will be sent to you.
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.
