Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 13:11:50 +0100 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Implementing mixed mask attack On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 12:52:29PM +0100, Micha?? Majchrowicz wrote: > That's one of the reasons I am playing with descrypt (second is that > it's pretty popular on IoT) I know maximum length is 8 and testing > "anything" up to 7 chars can be done in reasonable time. So if those > pws are ascii (as I explained I assume they are due to telnet and by > comparing to others) it's only a matter of approach. For now I am only > gathering data and try to come up with some conclusions. Also possible > making any assumptions about what those IoT hashes are is pointless > but one of my goals is to check different approaches and learn what > works and what doesn't. Especially in situations where pure ?a mask > attack is not an option :) I understand you're playing with descrypt to test approaches you'd reuse for other hashes, but FWIW "pure ?a mask" _is_ an option for descrypt. For example, with "--format=descrypt-ztex" on 4 boards (16 FPGAs) here it's 20 days max (10 average?) against one descrypt hash: 95^8/3800/10^6/86400 = 20.21 With hashcat, you can also have this speed on a couple of high-end GPUs. (JtR's descrypt-opencl is currently slower on those.) This isn't to say I'd actually use merely a mask. I'd rather use e.g.: --incremental --mask='?w?a?a?a' to have 5 out of 8 characters searched in a more optimal order (and bring the average way below 10 days). (The mask would then be for its implementation on-device, to avoid running into the host to device communication bottleneck.) 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.