Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 22:32:06 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Incremental mode in 22.214.171.124 On 15 May, 2013, at 22:17 , Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 08:05:17PM +0200, magnum wrote: >> On 14 May, 2013, at 11:09 , Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote: >>>> Despite 1.7.9 (unstable) running 25% slower, it does crack more hashes here. This is with exact same training as bleeding. >>> >>> This is unexpected and troubling - we don't want to be making things >>> worse than what we had before. >> >> Unfortunately further tests seem to show the same. > > This is weird. It is inconsistent with previous test results, > including yours: > > http://www.openwall.com/lists/john-dev/2013/04/26/12 > > How do you explain that? I'm aware of that, it bugs me too. I was likely even using the same test set! I need to check out that older version and compare. But the post states I used 0x7e and 15 (and likely a min of 0x20)... is it possible we lose precision somehow with the larger figures? > Did I break something in the new incremental mode, reducing its > efficiency, after that test? Or was the test or interpretation of its > results somehow wrong? > > Can you test with more datasets, not just those same 70k hashes? I did use a totally different DES set now too (g4wker), with even worse results compared to older. That's in the odf. > Can you add last summer's contest edition to the mix? This crossed my mind too. I will. I think I'll start with reverting to April 26. Or maybe first re-train using current code at 0x20 0x7e and 15? 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.