Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:00:41 +0200 From: magnum <rawsmooth@...dband.net> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: RE: New pkzip format [Moved to 'onlist' ] On 2011-09-09 01:33, JimF wrote: > From: "magnum" <rawsmooth@...dband.net> >> NT went from 27M c/s down to 18M c/s from the more work put in bench.c. > > I realize that non-salted (and 1 salt) runs are going to be slowed down, > from what the default is. However, on this machine, what is the 'true' > speed you see, if using one of the faster methods, like inc:alnum, > -inc:alpha, etc? I bet the 'real' performance is much closer to 18M than > it is to 27M :) I thought so too but thats's not really it. However, NT is so fast it really gets hit by incremental mode "shifting gears" (which gets less frequent the longer you run it) so it's hard to tell what is a 'true' figure. Attacking one single, unbreakable, NT hash, I exhaust -inc:digits in seconds with a "low" figure: guesses: 0 time: 0:00:00:05 DONE c/s: 21408K trying: 83536787 - 83536784 Running -inc:alpha, the reported speed exceeds that immediately: guesses: 0 time: 0:00:00:49 0.52% c/s: 22908K trying: hclkcubb - hclkcuje guesses: 0 time: 0:00:01:26 0.92% c/s: 23198K trying: sosfcfor - sosfcfea guesses: 0 time: 0:00:01:57 1.26% c/s: 23263K trying: kiaddhbo - kiaddpan guesses: 0 time: 0:00:02:25 1.57% c/s: 23455K trying: casebbei - casebmmn And running plain -inc it's soon near 24M: guesses: 0 time: 0:00:03:37 0.00% c/s: 23659K trying: 23apjoee - 23apjomu guesses: 0 time: 0:00:04:17 0.00% c/s: 23837K trying: rhtsduli - rhtsdut1 guesses: 0 time: 0:00:04:34 0.00% c/s: 23904K trying: dipbaye - dipbifl guesses: 0 time: 0:00:06:11 0.00% c/s: 23919K trying: s7mabE - s7max@ guesses: 0 time: 0:00:07:51 0.00% c/s: 23998K trying: bweghy16 - bweghy22 I don't think we should change the benchmark for this case at all, just add another "mode" for use with formats like yours. By the way, here are two crafted benchmarks, the first using a fixed speed test password of one character, the second using the max. 27 chars: Benchmarking: NT MD4 [128/128 X2 SSE2-16]... DONE Raw: 32799K c/s real, 33130K c/s virtual Benchmarking: NT MD4 [128/128 X2 SSE2-16]... DONE Raw: 18652K c/s real, 18840K c/s virtual The format is so fast that the length of plaintexts is a significant parameter. I noticed this before when NT got more self-tests. magnum
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.