[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:20:58 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: descrypt-opencl "section 0" fix
On 2013-10-29 18:16, magnum wrote:
> On 2013-10-29 15:23, Solar Designer wrote:
>> descrypt-opencl was failing to crack some of the hashes the correct
>> candidate passwords for which appeared in indices 0 to 31.
>
>> The attached patch attempts to and appears to correct this. At least my
>> tests pass now. Note that while I am patching both instances of the
>> code, I think I have tested only one of them.
>
> Committed. I'll investigate if we can enhance the Test Suite in some way.
OK, without that patch:
$ echo VTb0BiUKhqhjU >test
$ echo 123456 >dict
$ ../run/john -form:descrypt-opencl test -wo:dict
Device 1: GeForce GT 650M
Local worksize (LWS) 64, Global worksize (GWS) 16384
Loaded 1 password hash (descrypt-opencl, traditional crypt(3) [DES OpenCL])
Press 'q' or Ctrl-C to abort, almost any other key for status
0g 0:00:00:00 DONE (2013-10-29 19:09) 0g/s 100.0p/s 100.0c/s 100.0C/s 123456
Session completed
I do not get the difference between the above vs. having a built-in test
vector using the same data? In both cases, we call set_salt("VT"),
set_key(0) and finally crypt_all(1).
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.
