[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:06:15 +0800
From: Gu George <gu.xy.george@...il.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: faster Lotus5 hash cracking (was: JtR CUDA ????)
Alexander:
Thanks for your answer, and I am sorry for reusing an old thread.
After reading your reply, I still have another question:
For Lotus5 format, how to configure John ONLY to carck the hashes more than
8 digits and/or lower case characters.
Thanks again.
2011/12/14 Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:13:23AM +0800, Gu George wrote:
> > I have tried to crack some Lotus Domino hashes by John-1.7.7-jumbo. I
> used
> > following command: .\john.exe --incremental -format:lotus5
> > .\noCrackedHash_1.txt,
>
> BTW, there's a newer build for Windows here:
>
> http://openwall.info/wiki/john/custom-builds#Compiled-for-Windows
>
> As far as I am aware, it is not any faster at Lotus5 hashes, though.
>
> > and the benchmark is about 94508K c/s.
>
> I guess this is not the benchmark, but rather speed seen while cracking.
> It depends on the number of hashes loaded for cracking a lot.
>
> > I have
> > sucessfully carcked about 100 hashes in about 2 weeks, but there are
> about
> > 300 hashes which are not carcked.
>
> Sounds reasonable.
>
> > My PC has an Intel i7,8 core CPU@...z.
>
> You mean quad-core, 8 logical CPUs.
>
> > So, my question is: is there a more fast version of John-Ripper, such as
> > CUDA support?
>
> For this hash type, no.
>
> > I have checked http://openwall.info/wiki/john/GPU, it seems
> > current patches do not support Lotus5 format.
>
> That's correct.
>
> > Another question: Is it possible to configure John-Ripper to run more
> > faster in my PC?
>
> Yes: you need to run 8 instances of it in parallel, configured to try
> different candidate passwords and using different --session names.
> If doing this for 8 instances is difficult, then do it for at least 4 -
> e.g., you may split by length:
>
> http://openwall.info/wiki/john/parallelization#IncrementalAllN
>
> You can also try building with MPI support, but that's more difficult.
>
> I guess we should implement OpenMP parallelization for this hash type,
> but we haven't done so yet.
>
> Alexander
>
> P.S. Your reuse of the old thread for a mostly unrelated topic was in
> fact undesirable.
>
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.
