Speed / Performance Comparison

[pyr]

Hi,

Thanks for your work.

You say on the home page "Fastest cpu-based multihash cracker", but when I tried it with this command :

Code:

hashcat-cli.exe -n 2 -m 1000 -a 3 --bf-pw-min=1 --bf-pw-max=7 one.txt
Initializing with 2 threads and 32mb segment-size...
Added hashes from file one.txt: 1 (1 salts)
Activating quick-digest mode for single-hash
Charset...: abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Means :
- 2 threads (I have 2 cores),
- bruteforce mode with loweralpha only, 1 -> 7 chars.
- file one.txt contains only one NTLM hash
- m 1000 : NTLM algo.

About 14M hashes /sec. About 10 minutes (not cracked).

Then I found the tool "EnTibr", and with this command :

Code:

EnTibr.exe -t 2 E79B303327E5E1BB621B52D2BA8B2330 -c loweralpha -l 7

Length 1 - 100% in 0.00 s (0.02 Mhashes/s)
Length 4 - 100% in 0.00 s (118.98 Mhashes/s)
Length 5 - 100% in 0.10 s (118.34 Mhashes/s)
Length 6 - 100% in 2.80 s (112.32 Mhashes/s)
Length 7 - 100% in 75.68 s (107.85 Mhashes/s)

Crack takes 1mn30 (not cracked) ... with more than 100Mhashes/sec

So, now I just want to understand, I don't care which tool is the best, is faster.. but hashcat is not the faster, but is 10 times slower than other tools.
Why ? Is it my fault, my command line which is not optimized ?

Thank you.

[Rolf]

Fastest cpu-based multihash cracker

[pyr]

Activating quick-digest mode for single-hash

Means there is a kind of special algo to deal with single hash. So it's not multihash anymore ?

[atom]

yeah its a special optimization. it ignores the multihash bitmaps in quick digest mode.

[pyr]

Ok.
So why it is slower than an other tool ?

[atom]

because of various reason, but especially because hashcat is designed for wordlist-based attacks not brute-force attack.