Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 15:31:19 -0400 (EDT) From: "Brad Tilley" <brad@...ystems.com> To: "Solar Designer" <solar@...nwall.com> Cc: "Brad Tilley" <brad@...ystems.com>, john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Brute Force TrueCrypt Headers > Brad - > > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 03:11:37PM -0400, Brad Tilley wrote: >> Mine does about 50 passwords a second, but it's not optimized to crack >> passwords. I have a bit in the FAQ about that: http://16s.us/TCHead/faq/ >> >> A multi-threaded or multi-process attack should do more than that. > > Thanks for the prompt response. > > Shortly after I sent the message, it occurred to me that TrueCrack's 15 > p/s might be for just one thread, too. > > The screenshot you have at http://16s.us/TCHead/ shows Serpent and > Whirlpool instead of RIPEMD-160 and AES, which are apparently the > default. Is this just to show that TCHead supports non-default settings > as well? Is the 50 p/s speed for RIPEMD-160 and AES (thus directly > comparable to TrueCrack's)? > > Alexander > I would think that per core the software would be at least as fast as a single process of TCHead running on one core or close to it. Not sure though as I've not looked at their code. Yes on the 50 p/s statement. That screenshot just happened to be on a volume that used that particular hash and cipher. TCHead gets that rate (50 p/s) on any hash and any single cipher. I've not gotten around to implementing multiple ciphers yet. That would slow things down quite a bit I expect, perhaps this other software does that and that explains the difference? Brad Brad
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.