[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 23:47:25 +0530
From: SAYANTAN DATTA <std2048@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: bf-opencl
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> Sayantan -
>
> I've just tried running bf-opencl in magnum-jumbo on HD 7970 against
> pw-fake-unix from:
>
> http://openwall.info/wiki/john/sample-hashes
>
> This triggered an ASIC hang on the 7970 after a few minutes. Also, only
> one password was cracked:
>
The ASIC hang should be fixed in the new patch currently im magnum-jumbo.
>
> $ ./john -fo=bf-opencl ~/john/pw-fake-unix -w=password.lst -pla=1
> OpenCL platform 1: AMD Accelerated Parallel Processing, 2 device(s).
> Using device 0: Tahiti
> *****See 'opencl_bf_std.h' for device specific optimizations******
> Loaded 3107 password hashes with 3107 different salts (OpenBSD Blowfish
> OpenCL [BF_OPENCL])
> Suppressed 1 duplicate lines.
> omega (u2461-bf)
> guesses: 1 time: 0:00:00:14 0.00% c/s: 233 trying: 123456 - jethrotull
> guesses: 1 time: 0:00:00:21 0.00% c/s: 457 trying: 123456 - jethrotull
> guesses: 1 time: 0:00:00:25 0.00% c/s: 519 trying: 123456 - jethrotull
> guesses: 1 time: 0:00:00:29 0.00% c/s: 565 trying: 123456 - jethrotull
> guesses: 1 time: 0:00:00:33 0.00% c/s: 601 trying: 123456 - jethrotull
> guesses: 1 time: 0:00:00:37 0.00% c/s: 629 trying: 123456 - jethrotull
> guesses: 1 time: 0:00:00:40 0.00% c/s: 652 trying: 123456 - jethrotull
> guesses: 1 time: 0:00:00:44 0.00% c/s: 671 trying: 123456 - jethrotull
> guesses: 1 time: 0:00:00:48 0.00% c/s: 687 trying: 123456 - jethrotull
> guesses: 1 time: 0:00:00:52 0.00% c/s: 701 trying: 123456 - jethrotull
> guesses: 1 time: 0:00:00:55 0.00% c/s: 713 trying: 123456 - jethrotull
> guesses: 1 time: 0:00:01:33 0.00% c/s: 779 trying: 123456 - jethrotull
> guesses: 1 time: 0:00:01:49 0.00% c/s: 793 trying: 123456 - jethrotull
>
> Somehow the c/s rate starts low and increases slowly. I don't have a
> good explanation for this in this case. The benchmark had reported
> something like 2500 c/s.
>
> Running on GTX 570 cracked only this same omega password (I interrupted
> after a minute or so).
>
> I realize that matching 3000 plaintexts against 3000 hashes (each with
> its own salt) at this low c/s rate is very time-consuming, and is a bit
> more time-consuming when keys_per_crypt is large, but I think we should
> be seeing many more passwords cracked during 2 minutes. Each
> crypt_all() call should result in about 1 password cracked, and it
> should be taking about 4 seconds (at 800 c/s). So we should have seen
> about 25 passwords cracked above, not one. I think there's a bug.
>
> Alexander
>
I'll surely look into it. BTW is it possible that a format passes self test
but fails in actual cracking?
Regards,
Sayantan
Content of type "text/html" skipped
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.
