Closed mirameshs closed 1 year ago
The problem is th Range lengh choice, if you compare the range:
>>> 0x200003f846d2e8c00 - 0x200003f843193c200
1000000000
The lengh is almost the same than you current N value.
Every thread try to solve a N value at the time, so first thread get the first sub-range and the next threads don't have any subranges left
One way that you can see this is using -M look:
./keyhunt -m rmd160 -f tests/66.rmd -r 200003f843193c200:200003f846d2e8c00 -l compress -t 8 -s 2 -S -M
...
Base key: 200003f843193c200 thread 0
[+] Total 13125632 keys in 2 seconds: ~6 Mkeys/s (6562816 keys/s)
In the previous example only one thread will be executed because the length of the subrange
If we change the size of N to 0x1000000 (24 bits)
./keyhunt -m rmd160 -f tests/66.rmd -r 200003f843193c200:200003f846d2e8c00 -l compress -t 8 -s 1 -S -M -n 0x1000000
....
Base key: 200003f843193c200 thread 0
Base key: 200003f843293c200 thread 1
Base key: 200003f843393c200 thread 4
Base key: 200003f843493c200 thread 2
Base key: 200003f843593c200 thread 3
Base key: 200003f843693c200 thread 6
Base key: 200003f843893c200 thread 7
Base key: 200003f843793c200 thread 5
[+] Total 52076544 keys in 1 seconds: ~52 Mkeys/s (52076544 keys/s)
Different ranges are assigned to different threads.
So decrement your N value or increment the Main range Size.
Again: please don't open an issue every time that you don't undertand how the tools works
hello. I am using keyhunt on ubuntu. as you see in below examples, my speed on first range is 13 MK but on the second range is 3 MK. all parameters are same, just I changed the range
I hope my question do not bother you