Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:24:09 +0100 From: Patrick Proniewski <patpro@...pro.net> To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: meaning of p/s, c/s and C/s On 10 janv. 2016, at 16:42, Marek Wrzosek wrote: > Incremental mode should be more effective than mask mode. It'd try > password candidates in more probable order - not alphabetical. > > john --fork=4 --inc=alnum --min-len=8 --max-len=8 > > That command will took the same amount of time for breaking every > password from that space, but "low hanging fruits" would be broken faster. Thanks Marek, I've read about this difference before and tried --mask knowing it wouldn't be as fast as incremental to crack the first passwords. I've got another question by the way. I've launch the same as earlier but with only a 4 character mask: ./john --fork=4 --session=crypt-mask-4-AZaz09 --mask=[a-zA-Z0-9][a-zA-Z0-9][a-zA-Z0-9][a-zA-Z0-9] DUMP.20151205 I should be pretty fast, after 5 minutes I was already at ~35%: 2 0g 0:00:05:40 34.57% (ETA: 17:59:38) 0g/s 936.4p/s 3832Kc/s 29482KC/s 4c0q..7e0q 1 0g 0:00:05:40 34.21% (ETA: 17:59:48) 0g/s 926.7p/s 3793Kc/s 29180KC/s olub..rnub 4 0g 0:00:05:40 35.02% (ETA: 17:59:25) 0g/s 948.8p/s 3883Kc/s 29873KC/s cj1V..fl1V 3 0g 0:00:05:40 35.22% (ETA: 17:59:20) 0g/s 954.1p/s 3905Kc/s 30041KC/s 6LwG..9NwG but eventually, it would not end: 1 0g 0:00:39:30 N/A 0g/s 937.9p/s 3839Kc/s 29456KC/s 0Euj..3Guj 2 0g 0:00:39:30 N/A 0g/s 929.0p/s 3803Kc/s 29177KC/s maUy..pcUy 3 0g 0:00:39:30 N/A 0g/s 932.2p/s 3816Kc/s 29278KC/s a8qO..darO 4 0g 0:00:39:30 N/A 0g/s 937.8p/s 3839Kc/s 29455KC/s WCZ3..ZEZ3 is there a loop somewhere? thanks, pat
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.