Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 08:44:21 +0300 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: JtR 1.7 release candidate On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:47:41PM +0000, Phantom wrote: > Any chance of a changelog of this release? ;) The changes applied since 1.6.40 are minimal. No new features or performance improvements could possibly get in so shortly before a "stable" release. If you're really curious, you can browse the revision histories of individual source files via CVSweb: http://cvsweb.openwall.com/john Additionally, the changes are briefly described in the Owl package RPM spec file available here: http://cvsweb.openwall.com/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/Owl/packages/john/john.spec?rev=HEAD;content-type=text%2Fplain The last entry is: * Mon Jan 09 2006 Solar Designer <solar-at-owl.openwall.com> 1.7-owl1 - Documentation updates: separated CONTACT from CREDITS, added some FAQ entries, etc. - When displaying programs' usage information, use either an equivalent of basename(argv) (with the main John program) or fixed strings (with the auxiliary tools). - In rec_done(), do a log_flush() even if the session completes normally; this is needed to hopefully update the pot file prior to our removal of the crash recovery file. - Applied some Cygwin-specific updates to signals.c and DOS/Win32-specific updates to the Makefile. The most significant change this time is the very availability of would-be official DOS and Win32 builds, -- which is precisely why I've asked for testing of those. Would you and others please test these builds with your typical uses of John? That is, run it on some password files or maybe continue a session started with an older version. Then let me know whether there were any problems. As it relates to the major changes made since 1.6, they're documented in doc/CHANGES, also available at this URL: http://www.openwall.com/john/doc/CHANGES.shtml > 1.7 (win-mmx) bench> > Benchmarking: Traditional DES [64/64 BS MMX]... DONE > Many salts: 992374 c/s > Only one salt: 925581 c/s That's really good DES performance for an x86 system. It's good to know that you've been getting the same performance (for all hash types) with another build (of 1.6.40), so things are pretty stable for you performance-wise. Here's one funny detail: I intentionally did the DOS build with an older version of gcc (2.95.3), resulting in somewhat better LM hash performance on at least Pentium 3 processors (maybe also on AMD ones). Unfortunately, this older gcc is no longer available pre-built for Cygwin, so I did not bother to do the same for Win32 (I used gcc 3.4.4 there). The real fix would be to provide x86 assembly code for parts of DES_bs.c for the next release. This only affects LM hashes. I did some brief benchmarks of this build of John vs. ex-@...ke's LC5 (now discontinued by Symantec), ElcomSoft's PPA, and SAMInside at LM hashes. I am satisfied with the results. :-) (I also tried out LC5's support for Unix hashes. It's slow and the user interface misbehaves. Perhaps the next version would have been better, if the product were not discontinued.) -- Alexander Peslyak <solar at openwall.com> GPG key ID: B35D3598 fp: 6429 0D7E F130 C13E C929 6447 73C3 A290 B35D 3598 http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
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.