oclHashcat-plus v0.09 poll

[atom]

Hey Hashcat-Users!

after the release of oclHashcat-plus v0.08 I am wondering what you guys are most interessted in to add next.

Due to some technical limitations inside MyBB there is no way to do multiple polls inside a single thread so I had to split them to multiple polls.

oclHashcat-plus v0.09 Poll 1/3: Next major feature
oclHashcat-plus v0.09 Poll 2/3: Next minor features
oclHashcat-plus v0.09 Poll 3/3: Next algorithms

The poll is running till 20.05.2012

[atom]

Thanks to all participants!

When the poll was still running I played around a bit with some of the expected winners. It was very unexpected for me so many people were interessted in the length > 16 support. I quickly did some hacks: We will see performance drops between 50% to 500%, depending on the algorithm, the attack mode and total max length supported. Also the memory requirements increments massive. For example for a single hd6990 cracking MD5 of length 50 took around 20gb host memory. That is all because of the dictionary cache which is required for rule based attacks. In theory it should be possible to code different structures for > 16 but then not for support of rule based attack.

I have to admit, seeing people not interessted in markov really astonished me. Coding for distribution should be more simple. I think we will start with support for this on -lite to get some experience. All I know yet is that the communication protocol should be based on http so that it can go through http proxies.

The minor thing, the increment mode for -plus is already done in beta. That was easy. I've decided to add another minor thing, the hotkey prompt to skip to the next dictionary.

The last thing, adding the TC algorithm, was clearly the most uninteressting thing I can imagine. I am a bit disappointed on this result. Honestly, if I do file based crypt I know I have to choose a very complicated password.

The 2nd placed $6$ however is more interessting. I will give this more priority since this is lower hanging fruit.

Again,

Thanks to all participants !!!

[perlish]

I prefer distributed,increment mode and Blowfish(UNIX) $2$ hash which is used by suse default installation.

[Hash-IT]

Thank you for writing your thoughts on the poll results atom.

I wonder if the >16 character password performance drops would be less noticeable on WPA for example ? People are more likely to use passwords >16 when choosing a WPA password which is why I presume it was so popular here on the forums.

I too am surprised about lack of markov requests but I suspect as people only had one vote they had to use it on the thing they needed most. I would imagine most users would like to see nearly all the options you posted implemented at some point !

If markov is a simple thing to add would it matter that it didn’t get many votes ? Perhaps people don’t realise how useful it would be until they have it.

I understand you are not keen on supporting file based encryption such as Truecrypt, but many users are. If you want to see a huge response try asking if we would like .zip, .rar and office supported !!!!

Thanks again for your efforts and hard work.

[skalderis]

I personally think > 16 passwords support is useless. If somebody security minded chose password more than 16 in length, many chances that you can hit this? I believe resume is a must as it cracks for long time (not just testing). Not to mention that system can hang from time to time from OC, outage, temp limit, ect. Markov Attack I thought it is a very good idea too. Increment brute force...

Most important is to choose the right masks. I cracked mscash 8/10 in half day. I did masks for max 1:30h. With maximum overclock. So I had more than few hangs. Good thing I didn't do -1 ?l?u?d?s "incremental trick", I would be cracking till now.

My point is that most doing brute force instead of thinking how most people set their password. That's why they asking for these things. I recommend for them to download hacked pron.com passwords (over 20K of them) that floats on internets. And study. Rarely passphrase goes beyond 15 and if it does its "NwQtFPuaquegGQNKxli" that is real pass taken from that file. No rule, no mask, no distributed attack with increment brute force will crack this. You would probably get stuck on 15 length forever.

Still, this is the the best program on the net for this job. Keep it going!

[Hash-IT]

I personally think > 16 passwords support is useless. If somebody security minded chose password more than 16 in length, many chances that you can hit this?

There are many common passwords that are greater than 15 (for WPA)...

thisismypassword
administrator123
mysecretpassword

I believe resume is a must as it cracks for long time (not just testing). Not to mention that system can hang from time to time from OC, outage, temp limit, ect.

I agree that a resume feature is useful, however you are able to split your word lists accordingly and make your own log.

[perlish]

if > 16,the crack speed will get down to 50%,I thought it will be useless,because we will take long time to crack it.
so we need distributed crack first,then > 16

[Hash-IT]

Ha ha

I am starting to wonder if the drop in performance would be so bad for WPA cracking as it would for MD5 for example. I suspect the drop will be different for each.

I think it has been suggested elsewhere on this forum that there should be two versions (kernels) for hashcatplus so one based on performance of <16 characters and one for completeness of >16 characters. I understand this would require too much work and bloat hashcatplus.

It is a tough one and one which is beyond my limited abilities. Fortunately we have atom thinking about it now and I am sure he will come up with an answer. Something to think about though is that it doesn’t matter how fast hashcatplus is if it cannot test the password required then it is useless. Although if it is slow but able to complete the test at least you get the password in the end….. however long that may take !

[forumhero]

why crack wpa when we have reaver for wps now...

[Mem5]

why crack wpa when we have reaver for wps now...

- All Access Point do not have this feature
- user can disable wps
- distance make the wps crack very long
- ..