Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:11:47 -0800 From: Alain Espinosa <alainesp@...il.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: binary hashes and BINARY_SIZE On 3/29/11, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote: > ... moving some code from cmp_one() to cmp_exact(). Alain? Many > other "formats" are similarly not optimized in this respect. Not that I > care much (with modern RAM sizes), but Alain started to compare memory > usage of different tools here: > http://www.hashsuite.webuda.com/index.php?p=1_6 ;-) > JtR's memory usage at NTLM will grow by 4 MB or 8 MB with the large hash > tables patch, but we can reduce it by 8 MB or 12 MB with the BINARY_SIZE > optimization. I make a rapid read and do not fully understand how john works. When i have some free time i read again and change the NTLM behavior. I think this 'john internal documentation' is very useful for john developers when starting a new format. Add it to the wiki or a 'How to support a new format'? I think memory usage/managment make an appreciable influence in performance which a large number of hashes. saludos, alain
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.