[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANWtx00uPPuaDpSnQdCGqzsKUcAi0K-CQCXw1u_PhNxfQ_8hcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 21:39:17 -0500
From: Rich Rumble <richrumble@...il.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Rulesets combination and logs
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 6:44 PM, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
> As you probably know there is this workaround though:
>
> ./john -w:wordlist -rules:best -stdout | ./john -pipe -rules:leetspeek hashfile
>
> This accomplishes the exact same thing but is not resumable. You could of course make it resumable by letting the first process produce a temporary output file instead of piping it, but that file could get mind-bogglingly huge. On the other hand you could get rid of some dupes by throwing unique into the mix:
>
> ./john -w:wordlist -rules:best -stdout | ./unique templist && ./john -w:templist -rules:leetspeek hashfile
When doing "john stdout" to another instance of john (pipe for
instance), does one need to do anything else to make sure the second
instance is keeping up? What if I'm doing an office2010 file and I get
60-70 c/s (not kilo not M just 60-70), I'm sure the --pipe instance
will begin to miss the hundreds/thousands/millions of iterations from
the --stdout instance, they'd have to get queued somewhere. It's
probably true of faster formats too, but currently I'm dealing with a
very slow one.
-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.
