Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 13:43:53 +0400
From: Solar Designer <>
Subject: raw-sha256-cuda (was: [PATCH] integrate psk-crack (from ike-scan) into john.)

On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 07:19:30PM +0200, Lukas Odzioba wrote:
> Just ~8M:
> ukasz@...l:~/current-magnum/ukasz-jumbo/src$ ../run/john -test
> -fo=raw-sha256-cuda
> Benchmarking: raw-sha256-cuda [SHA256]... DONE
> Raw:    7831K c/s real, 7754K c/s virtual
> 6.5M on gtx460
> But on wiki there is info about 10k version of this patch, and I am
> absolutely sure that I was working on it this year.
> I must dig through my hdd to find a proper code.
> Anyway 10M or even 15M is still slow.

Yes, it's weird that your raw SHA-256 code is so slow.  It doesn't even
hit the formats interface and CPU to GPU transfers bottleneck.  IIRC,
myrice's SHA-512 code performed faster even with a similarly large

BTW, "raw-sha256-cuda [SHA256]" suggests that you're using a code
revision different from what's in magnum-jumbo, which has:

#ifdef SHA256
  #define FORMAT_LABEL          "raw-sha256-cuda"
  #define FORMAT_NAME           "Raw SHA-256"
#define ALGORITHM_NAME          "CUDA, unreliable, may miss guesses"

And we need to actually make it reliable, so that we can remove the
"unreliable" notice.


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.