Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 11:02:06 +0300 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: NTLM scalability improve On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 01:11:10AM +0100, magnum wrote: > On 2011-03-24 22:42, Alain Espinosa wrote: > >Changes to NTLM format to perform better with huge number of hashes. > > > >As you can see the improve is significant. Thank you, Alain! > You can say that again! I tried it with 2M test hashes. Without this > patch, just _loading_ them took 47 seconds, then the c/s was reported as > 31200M (even though the initial loading time does not affect the c/s > figure). > > With the patch, loading them took about 2 seconds, after which it > completed inc:digits in about 39 seconds (still 6 seconds before the > unpatched version even had started cracking!). And speed was reported as > 5698005M c/s... Sure. We should have recalled that these hash functions were still missing in the NTLM code a lot sooner. BTW, I am thinking of adding two more hash table sizes (for use by all "formats") - 16M and 256M entries. This will be handy if someone loads the RockYou 32M passwords with 1.7.7's "dummy" format, such as for testing of a ruleset. > ...speaking of that, I enclose a patch that make John say 5698G c/s > instead (it's from fullMPI), is there any reason not to include this in > the Jumbo? Yes: I've just included this "feature" in the main tree. ;-) if (cps.hi > 232 || (cps.hi == 232 && cps.lo >= 3567587328U)) sprintf(buffer, "%uG", div64by32lo(&cps, 1000000000)); (I've made the check more precise.) Thanks, 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.