[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 11:02:06 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: NTLM scalability improve
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 01:11:10AM +0100, magnum wrote:
> On 2011-03-24 22:42, Alain Espinosa wrote:
> >Changes to NTLM format to perform better with huge number of hashes.
> >
> >As you can see the improve is significant.
Thank you, Alain!
> You can say that again! I tried it with 2M test hashes. Without this
> patch, just _loading_ them took 47 seconds, then the c/s was reported as
> 31200M (even though the initial loading time does not affect the c/s
> figure).
>
> With the patch, loading them took about 2 seconds, after which it
> completed inc:digits in about 39 seconds (still 6 seconds before the
> unpatched version even had started cracking!). And speed was reported as
> 5698005M c/s...
Sure. We should have recalled that these hash functions were still
missing in the NTLM code a lot sooner.
BTW, I am thinking of adding two more hash table sizes (for use by all
"formats") - 16M and 256M entries. This will be handy if someone loads
the RockYou 32M passwords with 1.7.7's "dummy" format, such as for
testing of a ruleset.
> ...speaking of that, I enclose a patch that make John say 5698G c/s
> instead (it's from fullMPI), is there any reason not to include this in
> the Jumbo?
Yes: I've just included this "feature" in the main tree. ;-)
if (cps.hi > 232 || (cps.hi == 232 && cps.lo >= 3567587328U))
sprintf(buffer, "%uG", div64by32lo(&cps, 1000000000));
(I've made the check more precise.)
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.
