Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:20:58 +0100
From: magnum <>
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).


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.