Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:33:13 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Kerberoast for John On 02/10/15 09:52, Michael Kramer wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 30. September 2015 22:39 CEST, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> schrieb: >> >> Thanks! I committed your patch as-is and then made significant changes >> and enhancements in a separate commit: >> https://github.com/magnumripper/JohnTheRipper/commit/05e5146 >> https://github.com/magnumripper/JohnTheRipper/commit/00bd1bb >> You were using OpenSSL EVP, which is slow and not thread-safe. I bet >> that bug was because of that, so it was probably squashed in the process. > Thanks again for fixing/enhancing my code! I was able to test it today and it works faster and better than before. > > But I still encounter this strange bug. If I just use ./john <myfile>, the speed gets slower over time. > > Some numbers: > > 0g 0:00:00:01 33.54% 1/3 (ETA: 08:32:05) 0g/s 405927p/s 405927c/s 405927C/s > > 0g 0:00:01:08 69.54% 2/3 (ETA: 08:33:40) 0g/s 43377p/s 535782c/s 535782C/s > 0g 0:01:16:24 3/3 0g/s 2320p/s 526810c/s 526810C/s > > Is this behaviour normal? > The file I've loaded has 311 hashes. If you look at the c/s or C/s figures, it actually gets faster. The first stage is "single mode" which is expected to have a LOT better p/s for many salts than any other mode, due to its design. All other modes will have a c/s ~= (p/s / number of unique salts) and you can expect the c/s figure to match the benchmark speed figure. If anything, the c/s of stage 2 (wordlist + rules) is curious. It seems to indicate stage 2 is slightly faster than incremental (stage 3). That is normally not the case. 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.