hashcat Forum

Hi all,
I'm trying to coordinate a brute-force attempt across 4 machines with --pw-skip and --pw-limit. The password I'm trying to brute-force is 8 char long so there are 6634204312890625 combinations, so machine one would go up to 1658551078222656, second from there etc.

Unfortunately when I try:
./cudaHashcat-lite64.bin --gpu-accel=320 --gpu-loops=1024 --gpu-async --pw-min=8 --pw-skip=1658551078222656 --pw-limit=3317102156445313 2aa0c885f65fa303a835d14160f64799 -1 ?l?u?s?d ?1?1?1?1?1?1?1?1

I get an error: ERROR: --pw-skip value is bigger than max combinations on left side

I checked the forum, the manual and asked on IRC for help as well, but so far no luck. If anyone has any info on this, please post it here!

Thanks!

no sorry, it does not work this way, that simple

(08-21-2011, 10:44 PM)atom Wrote: [ -> ]no sorry, it does not work this way, that simple

OK, then my question would be how to coordinate a brute-force across multiple machines so that the machines don't perform duplicate computations? Is it possible?

Simple!
Blandy was the first one to actually use it:
Say, you have a mask, -1 ?l?d ?1?1?1?1?1?1 ?1?1?1?1 .
And 4 machines with GPUs.
Then you divide the ?l?d keyspace by 4, and use something like
-1 ?l?d -2 012345678 ?2?1?1?1?1?1 ?1?1?1?1 on machine1
-1 ?l?d -2 9abcdefgh ?2?1?1?1?1?1?1 ?1?1?1?1 on machine2
etc.

Got it?

(08-22-2011, 06:30 AM)Rolf Wrote: [ -> ]Simple!
Blandy was the first one to actually use it:
Say, you have a mask, -1 ?l?d ?1?1?1?1?1?1 ?1?1?1?1 .
And 4 machines with GPUs.
Then you divide the ?l?d keyspace by 4, and use something like
-1 ?l?d -2 012345678 ?2?1?1?1?1?1 ?1?1?1?1 on machine1
-1 ?l?d -2 9abcdefgh ?2?1?1?1?1?1?1 ?1?1?1?1 on machine2
etc.

Got it?

Thanks, I was thinking of doing
1st machine: -1 ?l?d?s?u ?1?1?1?1?1?1?1?l
2nd machine: -1 ?l?d?s?u ?1?1?1?1?1?1?1?u
3rd machine: -1 ?l?d?s?u ?1?1?1?1?1?1?1?s
..

which is along the same line of thought =)

Yep!

Can you explain how to use --pw-skip and --pw-limit? From the description they seem better suited for distribution processing than using custom charset and masks.

(08-21-2011, 10:44 PM)atom Wrote: [ -> ]no sorry, it does not work this way, that simple

no, sorry. i recommend sticking to mask based distribution.