Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 19:44:54 +0300 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: PRINCE On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 05:20:53PM +0100, Frank Dittrich wrote: > On 01/09/2015 05:16 PM, Solar Designer wrote: > > I wouldn't even expect any speed penalty for PRINCE if we move it off > > GMP - I'd expect slight speedup or no measurable change. > > But, depending on implementation, you would get different candidate > sequences, right? Yes, if we use "double" we might get different results from hashcat pp's, although I find this unlikely (probably not in the first 2^52 candidates). If we use integers capped at 2^64-1 or so, I think we'll even more likely get the same results in practice, because we won't be trying that many candidates in practice. (Or maybe I misunderstand how/why GMP is used there?) If this stuff is ever implemented on GPU as magnum suggests, then perhaps proper sorting beyond 2^64 would become relevant. Perhaps we can use something custom like 96-bit integers there, or perhaps this portion of pp would stay on host. > That means, you can't start a session with a john build that has OMP > support, interrupt it, and resume with a build lacking OMP support. I guess you mean GMP, not OMP? If we remove the dependency on GMP, then I see no reason for us to have pp use GMP in any build, even if GMP is available. > Generating the same candidate sequence as hashcat (given the same input) > would be desirable. Agreed. Alexander
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.