03-21-2022, 10:50 PM
Good afternoon,
Please excuse me as this is my first post. I've read about keyspace, specifically from the FAQ page. However, I wanted to know why there is such a discrepancy with keyspace values. For example, -m 14000 outputs a keyspace of 34,359,738,368. In reality, there are 72 quintillion possible combinations for the 8 character DES key.
Taking something like hashtopolis into account, the entire keyspace gets taken by a single machine because the keyspace produced by hashcat itself is so low. IE: 8x 3090's does about 450-500 Gh/s in -m 14000, so the hashtopolis assigns it to a single host. Whereas the true keyspace would allow it to be distributed among several.
So my questions are these:
A) It seems the "hashcat legacy" had a more accurate keyspace, why did that change?
B) The hashcat output is 128^5, leaving the the remaining 3 bytes worth of keyspace out (DES is 8 bytes long). Is that on purpose? Is it because of the parity bits in DES?
Regards,
Raithe
Please excuse me as this is my first post. I've read about keyspace, specifically from the FAQ page. However, I wanted to know why there is such a discrepancy with keyspace values. For example, -m 14000 outputs a keyspace of 34,359,738,368. In reality, there are 72 quintillion possible combinations for the 8 character DES key.
Taking something like hashtopolis into account, the entire keyspace gets taken by a single machine because the keyspace produced by hashcat itself is so low. IE: 8x 3090's does about 450-500 Gh/s in -m 14000, so the hashtopolis assigns it to a single host. Whereas the true keyspace would allow it to be distributed among several.
So my questions are these:
A) It seems the "hashcat legacy" had a more accurate keyspace, why did that change?
B) The hashcat output is 128^5, leaving the the remaining 3 bytes worth of keyspace out (DES is 8 bytes long). Is that on purpose? Is it because of the parity bits in DES?
Regards,
Raithe