[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:31:19 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: statistics -openssl vs john
On 04/14/2012 09:29 PM, Deepika Dutta Mishra wrote:
> Hi, I was doing speed test between openssl des and john des. I get
> following statistics for openssl
>
> type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192
> bytes
> des cbc 100225.76k 89521.76k 89778.20k 95060.70k
> 96158.84k
>
> and for john
>
> Benchmarking: Traditional DES [32/32 BS]... DONE
> Many salts: 434566 c/s real, 997527 c/s virtual
> Only one salt: 426208 c/s real, 568277 c/s virtual
>
> Benchmarking: LM DES [32/32 BS]... DONE
> Raw: 9306K c/s real, 12086K c/s virtual
>
> Now considering openssl, it can process 100225.76 x 1000 = 100225760
> bytes/sec which should account to 100225760 /8 = 12528220 encryptions/sec
> (since DES block size is 8 bytes)
>
> With john, considering LM DES (which according to what I read does 2 DES
> encryption), the result is 9306 x 1000 = 9306000 x 2 = 18612000
> encryption/sec
>
> This provided 1.48 times speedup with john des (non sse or other
> optimizations). Am I right in my calculation?
Maybe, but you might be comparing apples to pears anyway. Just drop this
idea of comparing OpenSSL bytes/s with JtR c/s and you will do yourself
a favour.
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.
