ronnieman / pyrit

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/pyrit
0 stars 0 forks source link

Discrepancy: pecentage - pyrit eval vs. batch status #401

Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Running batch process on mysql server from multiple nodes

There is a clear discrepancy in the reported percentage of work completed that 
is displayed on a host batch processing work units on an sql db and the results 
displayed when a pyrit eval command is entered. See below the two results were 
takin at the same time.

EVAL PROGRESS DISPLAY
==============================================================
root@host:/home/devadmin# pyrit eval
Pyrit 0.4.1-dev (svn r308) (C) 2008-2011 Lukas Lueg http://pyrit.googlecode.com
This code is distributed under the GNU General Public License v3+

Connecting to storage at 'mysql://10.10.1.105/pyrit'...  connected.
Passwords available: 116618022

ESSID 'WirelessAP' : 57296969 (49.13%)

BATCH PROGRESS DISPLAY
===============================================================
host44:~# pyrit batch
Pyrit 0.4.1-dev (svn r308) (C) 2008-2011 Lukas Lueg http://pyrit.googlecode.com
This code is distributed under the GNU General Public License v3+

Connecting to storage at 'mysql://10.10.1.104/pyrit'...  connected.
Working on ESSID 'WirelessAP'
Processed 1826/3011 workunits so far (60.6%); 2331 PMKs per second.

So which one is real, and which one is being falsely reported,which is it? 
(60.6%) or (49.13%) ???

Original issue reported on code.google.com by Testicul...@gmail.com on 3 Aug 2012 at 11:59

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
Never mind the server ip discrepancy in my pasted content, the server was in 
fact 10.10.1.105 for both of these results, however one node is upstream and 
relies on nat to reach 10.10.1.105, I had to enter that ip to avoid confusion, 
I accidentally hit the 4 key instead. But the issue is real, and the results I 
have displayed here are otherwise an accurate demonstration of this issue.

Original comment by Testicul...@gmail.com on 4 Aug 2012 at 5:59