hashcat Forum › Support › hashcat v
Hashcat running VERY slow

Threaded Mode
Hashcat running VERY slow
Quentos Offline
Junior Member
**
Posts: 3
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2019
#1
05-24-2019, 08:55 PM
Hello everyone,

For some reason my hashcat is running very slow, it was running fine and then it started becoming slow and its now stuck being slow. It fixed itself for awhile, but its running slow again.

  1. Session..........: hashcat

  2. Status...........: Running

  3. Hash.Type........: bcrypt $2*$, Blowfish (Unix)

  4. Hash.Target......: hash.txt

  5. Time.Started.....: Fri May 24 14:41:26 2019 (12 mins, 17 secs)

  6. Time.Estimated...: Fri May 24 16:05:08 2019 (1 hour, 11 mins)

  7. Guess.Base.......: File (Wordlists/1-rs.txt)

  8. Guess.Queue......: 1/18 (5.56%)

  9. Speed.#1.........:      795 H/s (40.79ms) @ Accel:16 Loops:8 Thr:8 Vec:1

  10. Speed.#2.........:      795 H/s (39.24ms) @ Accel:16 Loops:8 Thr:8 Vec:1

  11. Speed.#3.........:      795 H/s (39.26ms) @ Accel:16 Loops:8 Thr:8 Vec:1

  12. Speed.#4.........:      796 H/s (40.59ms) @ Accel:16 Loops:8 Thr:8 Vec:1

  13. Speed.#5.........:      794 H/s (40.06ms) @ Accel:16 Loops:8 Thr:8 Vec:1

  14. Speed.#6.........:      795 H/s (40.68ms) @ Accel:16 Loops:8 Thr:8 Vec:1

  15. Speed.#*.........:     4770 H/s

  16. Recovered........: 0/5 (0.00%) Digests, 0/5 (0.00%) Salts

  17. Progress.........: 3505920/23967035 (14.63%)

  18. Rejected.........: 0/3505920 (0.00%)

  19. Restore.Point....: 685440/4793407 (14.30%)

  20. Restore.Sub.#1...: Salt:4 Amplifier:0-1 Iteration:520-528

  21. Restore.Sub.#2...: Salt:0 Amplifier:0-1 Iteration:136-144

  22. Restore.Sub.#3...: Salt:0 Amplifier:0-1 Iteration:192-200

  23. Restore.Sub.#4...: Salt:4 Amplifier:0-1 Iteration:768-776

  24. Restore.Sub.#5...: Salt:0 Amplifier:0-1 Iteration:1016-1024

  25. Restore.Sub.#6...: Salt:4 Amplifier:0-1 Iteration:632-640

  26. Candidates.#1....: adrfjced -> nigger321

  27. Candidates.#2....: lolumad -> asdasd123

  28. Candidates.#3....: kingsaleh -> a

  29. Candidates.#4....: ghorrock -> fff

  30. Candidates.#5....: jaime -> chad95

  31. Candidates.#6....: andu -> atiftw

  32. Hardware.Mon.#1..: Temp: 43c Fan: 85% Util: 86% Core:1835MHz Mem:3802MHz Bus:1

  33. Hardware.Mon.#2..: Temp: 47c Fan: 85% Util: 86% Core:1911MHz Mem:3802MHz Bus:1

  34. Hardware.Mon.#3..: Temp: 43c Fan: 85% Util: 80% Core:1911MHz Mem:3802MHz Bus:1

  35. Hardware.Mon.#4..: Temp: 44c Fan: 85% Util: 89% Core:1860MHz Mem:3802MHz Bus:1

  36. Hardware.Mon.#5..: Temp: 47c Fan: 85% Util: 84% Core:1885MHz Mem:3802MHz Bus:1

  37. Hardware.Mon.#6..: Temp: 48c Fan: 85% Util: 89% Core:1847MHz Mem:3802MHz Bus:1
I looked up some benchmarks for 1070's and based on what I used to get this is EXTREMELY slow.
Find
Reply
philsmd Offline
I'm phil
******
Posts: 2,267
Threads: 16
Joined: Feb 2013
#2
05-24-2019, 09:25 PM
bcrypt has a cost factor

2 ^ cost factor is determining the iteration count. You can't compare apple to oranges. different cost factors imply different speeds
Find
Reply
Quentos Offline
Junior Member
**
Posts: 3
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2019
#3
05-24-2019, 09:28 PM (This post was last modified: 05-24-2019, 09:38 PM by Quentos.)
(05-24-2019, 09:25 PM)philsmd Wrote: bcrypt has a cost factor

2 ^ cost factor is determining the iteration count. You can't compare apple to oranges. different cost factors imply different speeds

Yes, but the speed it used to run Bcrypt at is MUCH faster. I used to get around 5k per GPU. Everything I crack is much slower just not bcrypt. I'm really struggling to figure it out.
Find
Reply
philsmd Offline
I'm phil
******
Posts: 2,267
Threads: 16
Joined: Feb 2013
#4
05-24-2019, 09:37 PM
what are the number of salts and cost factors of the two runs that you are comparing ?

They must be identical to make any conclusions.

$2a$05$

for instance means 2^5 = 32 iterations, but for instance $2a$19$ means 2 ^ 19 = 524288 iterations.

524288 is much more than 32, $2a$19$ is much slower than $2a$05$

the more salts you have, the more combinations there will be each salt must be combined with each password.
Find
Reply
Quentos Offline
Junior Member
**
Posts: 3
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2019
#5
05-24-2019, 09:50 PM (This post was last modified: 05-24-2019, 09:50 PM by Quentos.)
(05-24-2019, 09:37 PM)philsmd Wrote: what are the number of salts and cost factors of the two runs that you are comparing ?

They must be identical to make any conclusions.

$2a$05$

for instance means 2^5 = 32 iterations, but for instance $2a$19$ means 2 ^ 19 = 524288 iterations.

524288 is much more than 32, $2a$19$ is much slower than $2a$05$

the more salts you have, the more combinations there will be each salt must be combined with each password.

OpenCL Platform #1: NVIDIA Corporation
======================================
* Device #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 2048/8192 MB allocatable, 15MCU
* Device #2: GeForce GTX 1070, 2048/8192 MB allocatable, 15MCU
* Device #3: GeForce GTX 1070, 2048/8192 MB allocatable, 15MCU
* Device #4: GeForce GTX 1070, 2048/8192 MB allocatable, 15MCU
* Device #5: GeForce GTX 1070, 2048/8192 MB allocatable, 15MCU
* Device #6: GeForce GTX 1070, 2048/8192 MB allocatable, 15MCU

OpenCL Platform #2: Intel(R) Corporation
========================================
* Device #7: Intel(R) HD Graphics 510, skipped.
* Device #8: Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU G4400 @ 3.30GHz, skipped.

Benchmark relevant options:
===========================
* --optimized-kernel-enable

Hashmode: 0 - MD5

Speed.#1.........:  8788.8 MH/s (26.70ms) @ Accel:32 Loops:1024 Thr:1024 Vec:4
Speed.#2.........:  8413.8 MH/s (25.75ms) @ Accel:32 Loops:1024 Thr:1024 Vec:4
Speed.#3.........:  8666.7 MH/s (25.89ms) @ Accel:32 Loops:1024 Thr:1024 Vec:4
Speed.#4.........:  8541.2 MH/s (26.17ms) @ Accel:32 Loops:1024 Thr:1024 Vec:4
Speed.#5.........:  8525.3 MH/s (26.04ms) @ Accel:32 Loops:1024 Thr:1024 Vec:4
Speed.#6.........:  8378.6 MH/s (26.58ms) @ Accel:32 Loops:1024 Thr:1024 Vec:4
Speed.#*.........: 51314.4 MH/s

Hashmode: 100 - SHA1

Speed.#1.........:  4111.1 MH/s (76.25ms) @ Accel:64 Loops:1024 Thr:512 Vec:2
Speed.#2.........:  4094.1 MH/s (73.74ms) @ Accel:64 Loops:1024 Thr:512 Vec:2
Speed.#3.........:  3998.5 MH/s (73.76ms) @ Accel:64 Loops:1024 Thr:512 Vec:2
Speed.#4.........:  4146.0 MH/s (75.85ms) @ Accel:64 Loops:1024 Thr:512 Vec:2
Speed.#5.........:  4211.0 MH/s (75.05ms) @ Accel:64 Loops:1024 Thr:512 Vec:2
Speed.#6.........:  4145.9 MH/s (75.93ms) @ Accel:64 Loops:1024 Thr:512 Vec:2
Speed.#*.........: 24706.6 MH/s

Hashmode: 1400 - SHA2-256

Speed.#1.........:  1122.8 MH/s (52.93ms) @ Accel:32 Loops:256 Thr:1024 Vec:1
Speed.#2.........:  1062.5 MH/s (52.32ms) @ Accel:32 Loops:256 Thr:1024 Vec:1
Speed.#3.........:  1093.4 MH/s (51.69ms) @ Accel:32 Loops:256 Thr:1024 Vec:1
Speed.#4.........:  1062.8 MH/s (53.11ms) @ Accel:32 Loops:256 Thr:1024 Vec:1
Speed.#5.........:  1062.7 MH/s (52.52ms) @ Accel:32 Loops:256 Thr:1024 Vec:1
Speed.#6.........:  1188.0 MH/s (52.82ms) @ Accel:32 Loops:256 Thr:1024 Vec:1
Speed.#*.........:  6592.1 MH/s

Hashmode: 1700 - SHA2-512

Speed.#1.........:   333.1 MH/s (50.53ms) @ Accel:64 Loops:64 Thr:640 Vec:1
Speed.#2.........:   313.7 MH/s (49.75ms) @ Accel:64 Loops:64 Thr:640 Vec:1
Speed.#3.........:   323.7 MH/s (49.78ms) @ Accel:64 Loops:64 Thr:640 Vec:1
Speed.#4.........:   324.0 MH/s (51.50ms) @ Accel:64 Loops:64 Thr:640 Vec:1
Speed.#5.........:   320.4 MH/s (51.12ms) @ Accel:64 Loops:64 Thr:640 Vec:1
Speed.#6.........:   333.2 MH/s (50.70ms) @ Accel:64 Loops:64 Thr:640 Vec:1


If you look here you can see what they are supposed to be: https://hashcat.net/forum/thread-5440-page-5.html

Its running at almost half the speed of a 1070's benchmarked speed almost everywhere.
Find
Reply
slyexe Offline
Senior Member
****
Posts: 374
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2017
#6
05-26-2019, 12:03 AM (This post was last modified: 05-26-2019, 12:03 AM by slyexe.)
As phil has mentioned, your hash may have way more iterations which means it will run way slower than the benchmark indicates. 

Also to mention you're attempting 5 salts at once. 
Try a single salt and see if the speeds are more on par to what you're use too.
Find
Reply