Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 21:19:20 +0100 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: New self-test for maximum length On 1 Jan, 2013, at 19:03 , magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote: > I re-worked the max-length test a little. It now does call crypt_all() but when used with a many-keys format, it does not really add a call but uses one that would happen anyway. So no slow down for GPU formats. > > Anyway, the test now better reflects real-life use and should produce no false negatives. For some reason, I now get a few new problems: > > Benchmarking: dynamic_1003 md5(md5($p).md5($p)) [32/64 64x2 (MD5_Body)]... FAILED (get_hash(1)) > Benchmarking: MS SQL SHA-1 [128/128 SSE2 intrinsics 8x]... FAILED (get_hash(1)) > Benchmarking: Oracle 11g SHA-1 [128/128 SSE2 intrinsics 8x]... FAILED (get_hash(1)) > Benchmarking: HMAC MD5 [128/128 SSE2 intrinsics 12x]... FAILED (cmp_all(2)) > Benchmarking: HMAC SHA-1 [128/128 SSE2 intrinsics 8x]... FAILED (cmp_all(2)) > 5 out of 199 tests have FAILED > > I'll look into these, it still might be some unpredicted side-effect of the self-test. All gone, with further fixes to the self-test. Some formats depend on set_key() having been called for all N keys before crypt_all(N) is called. 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.