[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B93007E.8050601@bredband.net>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 02:25:18 +0100
From: "Magnum, P.I." <rawsmooth@...dband.net>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Feedback on the generic crypt(3) patch
Magnum, P.I. skrev:
>> It also adds some dupe-salt checking code that seemed to be missing,
>> in the unlikely case there are duplicates.
>
> Hm, some tests reveal that it still doesn't recognize duplicate salts.
> It probably doesn't make much sense anyway as the system call won't take
> benefit from duplicate salts. Still, I'd like the output of "Loaded x
> password hashes with y different salts" to come out right. What did I miss?
>
Sorry again for the spamming, I really thought I got it right but I got
the lengths wrong despite what I thought were valid double-checks. I
enclose a fixed fix of the fix. Like before, this patch can be applied
after Solar's "john-1.7.3.1-generic-crypt-1.diff.gz"
Another strange thing though. I made up a password file of 1000 entries
using the same salt. SHA-256 performs at ~275000 c/s and SHA-512 at
119000 c/s. The benchmarks report figures (for "same salt" too) in order
of 1/1000 of that. When I test the same using different salts, it
performs at about the speed as reported by the benchmark. This tells me
there is actually a benefit of duplicate salts which is a surprise in
itself, and why isn't the benchmark reflecting this?
View attachment "crypt-benchmark.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (2693 bytes)
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.
