What are the sizes of the hashes we are talking about here? How large is the resulting hash size given/displayed by 7z2hashcat ?
Furthermore, if the password is completely random you will really have a hard time cracking it (could be infeasible if long and really random!). random passwords are always difficult to crack. Are you sure you can't restrict your search space to a much smaller set of password candidates ? maybe a list of words with some rules (see https://hashcat.net/wiki/doku.php?id=rule_based_attack) applied to it, or combined words (see https://hashcat.net/wiki/doku.php?id=combinator_attack) etc.
I know it sometimes sounds very doable for some new users, but a really random word between "5 and 12 symbols" could be very difficult to crack even with a large and fast rig. I would recommend thinking about more clever ways to attack it, like rule-based attacks etc.
The problem with the supported length within hashcat should be somehow solveable (but you need to do some modifications to the source code at your own risk, it could use much more resources, most of all much more RAM etc): see https://hashcat.net/forum/thread-4328-po...l#pid33714 (I even remember helping a user recently with a patch to the latest code which worked, I think he got in touch with me over PMs, the patch is very straight-forward/easy... similar to the changes mentioned within the above post)
Furthermore, if the password is completely random you will really have a hard time cracking it (could be infeasible if long and really random!). random passwords are always difficult to crack. Are you sure you can't restrict your search space to a much smaller set of password candidates ? maybe a list of words with some rules (see https://hashcat.net/wiki/doku.php?id=rule_based_attack) applied to it, or combined words (see https://hashcat.net/wiki/doku.php?id=combinator_attack) etc.
I know it sometimes sounds very doable for some new users, but a really random word between "5 and 12 symbols" could be very difficult to crack even with a large and fast rig. I would recommend thinking about more clever ways to attack it, like rule-based attacks etc.
The problem with the supported length within hashcat should be somehow solveable (but you need to do some modifications to the source code at your own risk, it could use much more resources, most of all much more RAM etc): see https://hashcat.net/forum/thread-4328-po...l#pid33714 (I even remember helping a user recently with a patch to the latest code which worked, I think he got in touch with me over PMs, the patch is very straight-forward/easy... similar to the changes mentioned within the above post)