[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 580: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 636: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
3.14.by forum • Distributed crypo-network discussion - Page 8
Page 8 of 9

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:09 pm
by BarsMonster
neinbrucke wrote:oh btw, i have 3MB per core, so it's 12MB... you probably have the same, but dual core?
i have a Q9450, running it at 3.2 GHz. For you information: I get like 200-210 Mhashes/s with BarsWF.

brute forcer: http://blog.distracted.nl/2009/10/emdeb ... ihash.html (this version actually has a couple of bugs, but it finds hashes on windows :P)
i explain most of the stuff i use here: http://blog.distracted.nl/2009/09/multi ... pport.html
partial reversing still gained some speed over full md5... most speed is probably in the use of bitmaps for initial hash comparison, i used bitweasils implementation and optimized it.
How many hashes are in your hash-list?

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:15 pm
by neinbrucke
With a hash list of 200 000 hashes EmDebr is just falling back to around 119 Mhashes/s

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:18 pm
by BarsMonster
Awesome idea with 2x bitmaps...
I see, I am on 460'000.

Actually, killer solution is to fetch a required line from L2/RAM in advance, and while it's loading do some rounds of next MD5 key.
But that's gonna cause kinda scary code :crazy:

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:20 pm
by neinbrucke
hehe, i'll leave such scary code up to you :P (or your intel compiler :P)
hmm... no idea if intel compiler will actually improve speed of my multi hash version... maybe i'll need to go and grab myself a trial version again

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:24 pm
by BarsMonster
neinbrucke wrote:hehe, i'll leave such scary code up to you :P (or your intel compiler :P)
Intel C++ is not gonna prefetch that, unfortunately (that would be too good to be true, but CUDA does that)
hmm... no idea if intel compiler will actually improve speed of my multi hash version... maybe i'll need to go and grab myself a trial version again
Let us know results :-)
I bet it will :-)

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:26 pm
by LordMike
Why not let microprocessors do the job!?!.. :D

Just kidding anyhow.. Learnt they work at 1 MHz at school last friday :P
Got 160 pages datasheet on microprocessors :P

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:29 pm
by neinbrucke
fyi: opencrack uncracked list of something like 460k hashes drops to around 113 Mhashes

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:38 pm
by BarsMonster
neinbrucke wrote:oh btw, i have 3MB per core, so it's 12MB... you probably have the same, but dual core?
Well, you have 6Mb for cores 1 and 2, and another 6Mb for 3 and 4 :crazy:
Yes, I have the same but 2 cores (C2D E8400@3.86)

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 4:36 pm
by schwarzwaldhacker
most speed is probably in the use of bitmaps for initial hash comparison, i used bitweasils implementation and optimized it.
I will disclose a somewhat similar idea I got, when I started to write a DES Beta:

* Before I start the Kernel routine, I calculate hashes of all the hashes(comp2 is where the Hashes are stored, after having being read from file. In DES, the two first characters are the salt and I didn't include them in order to speed up things):

Code: Select all

for (int i=0; i<PassCountr;i++)
{
int testsumme=0;
for (int j=2; j<13; j++)
{
testsumme=(abs(testsumme-comp2[i*13+j])+j)*2;
}
comp3[i]=testsumme;
}
For 768 hashes, the results were from like 2 to around 150 000(Good formula, because the results are "evenly split", "well spread" or something. And in Cuda Kernel, you can use "mul24" and "sad", which is quite fast).

* Then I sort them from the smallest to the biggest.
* Now, every time Cuda bruteforced a new combination, I created a Hash of it("zwischenergebnis"):

Code: Select all

	#pragma unroll 11
	for (i=2; i<13; i++)
		{
		c=0;
		#pragma unroll 6
		for (j=0; j<6; j++)
			{
			c<<=1;
			if (bb[y] & u) c|=1;
			u>>=1;
			if (!u)
				{
				y++;
				u=0x80;
				}
			}
zwischenergebnis=__mul24((__sad(zwischenergebnis,cov_2char[c],i)),2);
		}
* And I compared this Hash("zwischenergebnis") to the list of "pre-calculated" Hashes(compd3 is the sorted list of comp2 Hashes in the Kernel, "dcount" the number of compd3 hashes):

Code: Select all

while ((zwischenergebnis>=compd3[i])&&(i<dcount))
{
if (zwischenergebnis==compd3[i])
[...]
Benefits:
* On average, only around ((50%)*Passwords) "simple tests" are being made("simple tests", because only the Hashes are compared, no full hash calculations).
* And usually, in millions of checks, only the bruteforced combination is being fully calculated(For instance, the DES cracker calculates the DES Hash for "aaa"+the hash of it). If no equal compd3-Hashes are found, no other Hashes are getting fully calculated(If no other Hashes have equal Hashes to the "calculated Hash", no further tests are being made).

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 12:31 am
by Crucifix
Man, I'm dying of waiting for this thing. It's gonna FLY through that 400K hash list.

Also, is all this coded in C++ ? I only know Java, a lot of the operators and reserve words look similar but some look very different.

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 12:48 am
by BarsMonster
Crucifix wrote:Man, I'm dying of waiting for this thing. It's gonna FLY through that 400K hash list.

Also, is all this coded in C++ ? I only know Java, a lot of the operators and reserve words look similar but some look very different.
Yes, C++ is the only way to reach top performance, so both CPU & GPU parts are in C++.

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:06 am
by BarsMonster
neinbrucke wrote:bars, how much cache is on your cpu?
cause i 'only' dropped to like 70-75% with multihash support (125M) on sse2 md5. Of course i started out with a somewhat lower single hash speed (175M), but still :P

p.s. i have 3MB L2 cache.
Thanks to your heads up, I found a nice bug caused my bitmaps not working at all (and I had disabled them at all thinking they are not effective) :-D
Now I am at 63%, which is 87Mhash for 2 cores @3.86Ghz. (And I was too lazy to reverse 8 steps with that hashlist rebuild - too much burden when you have to take care of GPUs too)

Error was kinda simple:

Code: Select all

	int aa = (a)&((1<<CPU_HASH_BITS)-1);
	if((g->a->cpu_bitmask_a[aa>>5]) & (1<<(aa&31)) == 0)
		return;
Spoiler Alert: After checking disassembly found out that I forgot that == have higher priority than & :crazy:

Meanwhile, sent another bug report to Intel, fortunately not a showstopper for BarsWF/Salty cracker :-)

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:16 am
by LordMike
Simple?..



:P

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:23 pm
by K.9
Let's start the beta test now?

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:45 am
by DarkPrince
what is happening?

1½ year? :sad:

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:50 pm
by _haxxor_
i think he's lazy :P

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:05 pm
by BarsMonster
DarkPrince wrote:what is happening?
1½ year? :sad:
That sucks really hard :crazy:
_haxxor_ wrote:i think he's lazy :P
:crazy: Also, need to earn less :crazy:

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:12 am
by Bruter
EnFuzion could be useful in the distributed password cracking.

Benefits of EnFuzion is support of varied Operating Systems :

Windows on x86 , 32-bit and 64-bit
Linux on x86, 32-bit and 64-bit
Mac OS X on PowerPC
Sun Solaris on Sparc
IBM AIX on PowerPC
HP HP-UX on PA-RISC
SGI Irix on MIPS
HP Tru64 on Alpha

http://www.axceleon.com/
http://www.axceleon.com/install/
http://www.axceleon.com/specs.html
http://www.axceleon.com/features.html
http://forum.ru-board.com/topic.cgi?for ... ic=46276#1

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:17 am
by Rolf
EnFuzion uses CPUs only as I've found out.That's old.

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:32 am
by Bruter
You are wrong!
EnFuzion is a Pipeline Manager, Job Creator and Job Scheduler, so it uses what you give him.

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:08 pm
by Rolf
Prove me wrong.
I've found nothing there about CUDA/CAL/OpenCL. :wink:

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:28 pm
by _haxxor_
Commercial license. not for us :)

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:30 pm
by vampyr
Well, considering the fact that I've already put a cracker WITH network support out there;)
Sure, the networking code isn't all that pretty, but it works. And it has a fairly low bandwidth cost.
Seriously tho, php or any web-scripting language isn't going to cut it for millions of hashes. Might as well use c++ and save some time.

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:02 pm
by LordMike
vampyr wrote:Well, considering the fact that I've already put a cracker WITH network support out there;)
Sure, the networking code isn't all that pretty, but it works. And it has a fairly low bandwidth cost.
Seriously tho, php or any web-scripting language isn't going to cut it for millions of hashes. Might as well use c++ and save some time.
Why would you code a website in C++?.. Or an application in php?..
I know that the latter is possible.. But isn't it a little ... Over-exceeding?

Re: Distributed crypo-network discussion

Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:19 pm
by vampyr
Well, i wasn't talking about coding the whole WEBSITE in c++, just the server distributing the tasks. 'cause php is too slow for those purposes.
Oh that, and that sending hashes in text instead of in binary form wastes bandwidth.