Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 08:59:30 +0200 From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: relbench/benchmark-unify (was: Bleeding-jumbo release) On 08/14/2013 12:02 AM, Frank Dittrich wrote: > On 08/11/2013 04:53 PM, magnum wrote: >> All Bleeding-jumbo issues known to me are listed in https://github.com/magnumripper/JohnTheRipper/issues > > I don't see the problem I mentioned on john-users a few days ago: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.openwall.john.user/6720/ > > benchmark-unify needs some adjustments so that relbench finds more > matches between current unstable (or latest jumbo release) and current > bleeding. I'm just going through the format name changes, comparing --test output of unstable and bleeding. If I have a string like "mschapv2-naive, MSCHAPv2 C/R", should I always drop the "format-label, " part in benchmark-unify, so that I still detect multiple implementations of the same algorithm, picking the fastest? But then, this would mean that "descrypt, traditional crypt(3)" would become "traditional crypt(3)". And "md5crypt, crypt(3) $1$" would become "crypt(3) $1$". I'm afraid there are some cases where important information gets lost: LastPass, sniffed sessions MongoDB, system / network PST, custom CRC-32 PuTTY, Private Key RAdmin, v2.x The other approach would be to keep all those format labels, and just drop those few labels where I have different implementations of the same algorithms, allowing the fastest one to be picked for comparison. But that would mean even more future benchmark-unify changes if additional implementations for existing algorithms come up. What is the preferred way of handling this? Frank
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.