Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 22:03:40 -0400 From: "Robert Harris" <rs904c@...scape.net> To: <john-users@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: RE: Speed of jtr on your machine? So, that version is compiled with the latest version of gcc (4.6.1). -----Original Message----- From: Bugtrace [mailto:bugtrace@...il.com] Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 3:49 AM To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [john-users] Speed of jtr on your machine? Sorry. In fact, it is compiled by Robert Harris On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Bugtrace <bugtrace@...il.com> wrote: > Guys, I download john-1.7.8-jumbo-5-Linux-x86-64(Compiled by Jim > Fougeron) from http://openwall.info/wiki/_media/john/john-1.7.8-jumbo-5-Linux-x86-64.tar.gz ?id=john%3Acustom-builds&cache=cache > > Faster than mine. > > pentest@...ntu:~/Downloads/john-1.7.8-jumbo-5-Linux-x86-64/run$ ./john > --format=raw-md5 --test > Benchmarking: Raw MD5 [gen]... Using raw-md5 mode, by linking to > md5_gen(0) functions DONE > Raw: 16789K c/s real, 16959K c/s virtual > > pentest@...ntu:~/Downloads/john-1.7.8-jumbo-5-Linux-x86-64/run$ ./john > --format=phpass-md5 --test > Benchmarking: PHPass MD5 [phpass-md5]... Using phpass mode, by linking > to md5_gen(17) functions DONE > Raw: 13360 c/s real, 13360 c/s virtual > > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 5:52 AM, magnum <rawsmooth@...dband.net> wrote: >> On 2011-09-13 18:50, jfoug wrote: >>>> >>>> Then I should look at that. It 'should' give some signature that lists >>>> it >>>> was built using sse2 intrinsic functions. >>> >>> Here is what I see in a 32 bit intrinsic build (cygwin). Now, this is not >>> jumbo-5, but I did not think anything changed about how md5_gen is built, >>> since then. >>> >>> $ ../run/john -test -form=md5-gen >>> Benchmarking: md5_gen(0): md5($p) (raw-md5) [SSE2 16x4x2 (intr)]... >>> DONE >>> Raw: 9653K c/s >>> >>> >>> I will later check this on my pen drive linux-64 system, to see if there >>> are >>> problems showing up there, which do not appear on this 32 bit build. >> >> >> It shows correctly when using md5_gen(0) but not when using thin raw-md5: >> >> $ ./john -fo:"md5_gen(0)" -test >> Benchmarking: md5_gen(0): md5($p) (raw-md5) [SSE2 16x4x2 (intr)]... DONE >> Raw: 13832K c/s real, 13832K c/s virtual >> >> $ ./john --format=raw-md5 --test >> Benchmarking: Raw MD5 [gen]... Using raw-md5 mode, by linking to md5_gen(0) >> functions DONE >> Raw: 13858K c/s real, 13858K c/s virtual >> >> This is simply because the format (rawMD5go_fmt_plug.c) says so: >> #define ALGORITHM_NAME "gen" >> >> It would be better if md5_gen replaced that. Perhaps it should when a thin >> format sets ALGORITHM_NAME to a null string? >> >> >> Back to topic, Bugtrace's performance figures are very low for some reason >> or the other. What's the output from -test -fo:"md5_gen(0)"? >> >> 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.