Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 20:03:01 -0400 (EDT) From: brad@...ystems.com To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Noob question: how to feed 10 alphanum char min&max incremental to aircrack when "MaxLen = 10 exceeds the compile-time limit of 8" > On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 06:52:03PM -0400, brad@...ystems.com wrote: > I think Joshua's point was that I made it so difficult to do simple/dumb > things (e.g., shoot oneself in the foot, which sometimes even makes > sense) that coding a separate program would be easier than figuring out > how to modify params.h to go beyond length 8 with incremental mode or > how to modify the DumbForce example in john.conf to specify the desired > lengths range and charset. Ah yes, not a good fit currently. > Yeah, it should be possible to do a lot faster than that, although you > haven't mentioned the number of NTLM hashes being cracked (with a truly > large number, the hash table lookups and collisions would be taking > significant time). Yes, I omitted that. The time (67m6.326s) was on roughly 30,000 NT (unsalted md4 unicode) hashes from the KoreLogic Defcon contest. wc -l nt_clean.txt 30820 nt_clean.txt > owl!solar:~/john/contest/john-1.7.6-jumbo-6/run$ ./john -e=dumbforce > -fo=nt -u=aabdelhamid ~/john/contest/pw-contest > Loaded 1 password hash (NT MD4 [128/128 X2 SSE2-16]) > guesses: 0 time: 0:00:00:03 c/s: 14275K trying: 45816704 - 45816735 > guesses: 0 time: 0:00:00:07 c/s: 14492K trying: 004654112 - 004654143 > guesses: 0 time: 0:00:06:49 c/s: 14042K trying: 4632509280 - 4632509311 > guesses: 0 time: 0:00:09:55 c/s: 14017K trying: 7229499904 - 7229499935 > guesses: 0 time: 0:00:11:31 c/s: 14011K trying: 8571090624 - 8571090655 > guesses: 0 time: 0:00:12:31 c/s: 14010K trying: 9411052608 - 9411052639 > guesses: 0 time: 0:00:13:14 c/s: 13993K trying: 9999999968 - 9999999999 That's one NT hash and SSE2, right? That should be fast. > For comparison, here's a raw hashing speed benchmark: > > owl!solar:~/john/contest/john-1.7.6-jumbo-6/run$ ./john -te -fo=nt > Benchmarking: NT MD4 [128/128 X2 SSE2-16]... DONE > Raw: 25493K c/s real, 25493K c/s virtual SSE again it seems. Good numbers for a CPU based application. I doubt you'll get much faster than that on a current CPU with that has type. > This benchmark uses a lower average password length, though, which might > contribute to the speed difference. > > Alexander Thanks for the numbers, Brad
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.