Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:48:46 +0100 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: SHA-crypt On 01/16/2012 10:53 AM, magnum wrote: > In progress. First incarnation was 35% faster than generic-crypt format > already (using same test vectors) although my only goal was for it to > work at all. Pushed to GitHub now, both sha-crypt256 and sha-crypt512. I didn't find much to optimise, it's spending over 95% in the OpenSSL functions. But OMP should scale well (I only tested two cores). Benchmarking: generic crypt(3) SHA-256 rounds=5000 [?/64]... (2xOMP) DONE Many salts: 372 c/s real, 189 c/s virtual Only one salt: 372 c/s real, 190 c/s virtual Benchmarking: SHA-crypt-256 [OpenSSL 32/64]... (2xOMP) DONE Many salts: 497 c/s real, 252 c/s virtual Only one salt: 497 c/s real, 254 c/s virtual Benchmarking: generic crypt(3) SHA-512 rounds=5000 [?/64]... (2xOMP) DONE Many salts: 432 c/s real, 221 c/s virtual Only one salt: 436 c/s real, 220 c/s virtual Benchmarking: SHA-crypt-512 [OpenSSL 64/64]... (2xOMP) DONE Many salts: 579 c/s real, 292 c/s virtual Only one salt: 579 c/s real, 292 c/s virtual crypt_all() and rounds parsing are pretty close copies of the reference code. Self-tests are the same that existed in crypt_fmt.c. I stole a little base64 convenience from MD5_std.c too. 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.