Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 08:14:03 -0400 From: Rich Rumble <richrumble@...il.com> To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: automation equipped working place of hash cracker, proposal On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> wrote: > On 05/08/2012 10:52 AM, Aleksey Cherepanov wrote: >> Alexander suggested to not waste our time on generation .rec files > > Yes, I think generating .rec files to distribute cracking tasks to > different clients is not such a good idea. > The file format can change any time, even if you get this done you'll > end up in a maintenance nightmare if you need to support different > versions of .rec file formats. John had a "fork" option in the CrackMeIfYouCan contest, derived from MPI I believe, perhaps the code that was used to create "fork=n" would be useful to distribute the work. I'm not sure how/if/where the code is available but it had a few bugs we know of and possibly more we didn't discover. The pot files were not updating on the children unless the child threads were killed, however that wasn't the case in cygwin, killing the children did not update the pot files. http://www.openwall.com/lists/john-dev/2012/01/17/9 Fork would not let you restart a session, .rec files were useless and this was to be expected with this patch. I found this mode very helpful+powerful during the contest, and despite it's shortcomings/bugs I still use it. -rich
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.