hashcat Forum

how do you want to customize it? are you trying to generate the password candidates in a very specific way ? because for "just" sha256 you do not need to customize anything

(07-13-2018, 12:05 PM)philsmd Wrote: [ -> ]oh. we are suddently speaking about brain wallets? The OP didn't mention that and the other post was modified to include "brain wallet". Yeah, that's a different story.

---

Nevermind, the title says it too. I missed that. sorry

---

Therefore, if you are sure that it is just a sha256 hash, it could be feasible with a lot of hardware. What is your character set?
The number of combinations 53981544960 seems quite strange for 6 characters because that is something like 61^6 = 51520374361 but not exactly

it use all upper, lower & numeric characters, no special chars. Oh i calculate wrong, i used 64 instead of 61

(07-13-2018, 12:10 PM)philsmd Wrote: [ -> ]how do you want to customize it? are you trying to generate the password candidates in a very specific way ? because for "just" sha256 you do not need to customize anything

My idea is add a new hash which convert the passphase into address & compare value. The brute force method still work the same way

You can use the sha256 kernel and modify that to add ecdsa public key derivation, then ripemd160. But well, that's what needs to be done.

yeah I agree, the code seems to be this one:
https://github.com/pointbiz/bitaddress.o...js#L27-L32

and this means that you need to do the elliptic curve operations.

instead of using hashcat you are probably better off using an existing implementation: https://github.com/ryancdotorg/brainflayer

(07-13-2018, 12:16 PM)philsmd Wrote: [ -> ]yeah I agree, the code seems to be this one:
https://github.com/pointbiz/bitaddress.o...js#L27-L32

and this means that you need to do the elliptic curve operations.

wait, do hashcat support javascript?

(07-13-2018, 12:18 PM)undeath Wrote: [ -> ]instead of using hashcat you are probably better off using an existing implementation: https://github.com/ryancdotorg/brainflayer

Thanks a lot, i'll give it a try

before jumping into this I would recommend doing the math because 64^6 (as far as I understood you corrected your first number above) is quite a huge number.
You would need to have a huge amount of bitcoin in that wallet and a lot of hardware to throw at it (don't forget about the energy cost etc too) to justify this investment/time/cracking.
but it is of course much better compared to hashing algorithms like scrypt etc, therefore it could be feasible with "just" sha256

---

I think with GPU support it would be much more efficient and a mask like -1 ?d?l?u ?1?1?1?1?1?1 would be done in just a couple of minutes with a modern GPU for -m 1400 (without the elliptic curve operations)... but I agree with undeath that adding elliptic curve code is probably not worth it either and you should do the speed test with already available crackers to get a feeling how long it could take (but should be doable)

(07-13-2018, 12:23 PM)philsmd Wrote: [ -> ]You would need to have a huge amount of bitcoin in that wallet and a lot of hardware to throw at it (don't forget about the energy cost etc too) to justify this investment/time/cracking.

It's slow and definitely nowhere near the performance you could achieve on GPU, but my old Intel i7-2600 can do 62k keys per seconds with brainflayer, per core. It would probably take 2-3 days to crack the brain wallet.