Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 14:16:52 +0100
From: Patrick Proniewski <p+password@...atpro.net>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: to Single or not to Single

Hello,

On 02 févr. 2017, at 12:24, Rich Rumble wrote:

>> My questions is: does it look like the good solution to you?

> Single might not be what your looking for. Single excels at using the
> usernames themselves, and items like home directory paths as additional
> candidates. Single is very good at that, and doesn't require you to parse
> that data out and create a separate file, it does it automatically.

Well, that's exactly why I'm using single, in fact. As I wrote, I've got a very good individual candidate for every individual hash. My hash file does not contain anything else than hashes, so out of the box, Single would not apply. I though it could be smart to use my candidate password as a "login" and build a password file that would derive benefits from Single:

candidate1:hash1
candidate2:hash2
...

Any other method I know would require to blindly test thousands candidates on every hash (salted -> slow). And testing ~47 millions candidates (+rules...) on +47 millions salted hashes, on CPU only, is not something you want to do.

I still find the performance debatable, and I wonder if this is my best option. May be I should split files again (100k lines instead of millions?) to maintain good perf?

patpro

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.