[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 02:55:40 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: OpenMP progress report bug with multiple 1 thread instances
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 08:19:37PM +0000, Alex Sicamiotis wrote:
> The rule was
>
> A0"[abcdefghijklmnpqrstuvwxyz][abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz][abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz][1234567890][1234567890][1234567890][1234567890]"
>
> for the first instance
>
> and
>
> A0"[abcdefghijklmnpqrstuvwxyz][abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz][abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz][abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz][1234567890][1234567890][1234567890]"
>
> for the second instance.
Ouch. That's over 600 million rules after preprocessing. I am not
surprised this causes an integer overflow during the progress percentage
calculation. We'll probably deal with this, though. Will also need to
speed up startup time (don't pre-check the syntax of all these rules
when there are so many).
BTW, did you intentionally omit "o" from the first letter list?
...and you could use ranges:
A0"[a-z][a-z][a-z][1-90][1-90][1-90][1-90]"
Also, you could put the first rather than the last character in your
wordlist. Then the rules would use Az instead of A0. Az is slightly
faster. You wouldn't notice the difference when running on many salts,
though.
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.
