[CyberGuard]

Hashing & Hash Lookup Program
With a Custom DB!

Mass lookup is not functional yet in the program.

We currently support these hash types for lookup:

• MD4
  
• MD4x2
  
• MD5
  
• MD5x2
  
• MD5x3
  
• MD5x4
  
• MD5x5
  
• MD5(SHA1())
  
• MD5(SHA1(SHA1()))
  
• SHA1
  
• SHA1x2
  
• SHA1x3
  
• SHA1x4
  
• SHA1x5
  
• SHA1(MD5())
  
• SHA1(MD5(MD5()))
  
• SHA256
  
• SHA512
  
• LM
  
• NTLM
  
• RIPEMD160
  

Salted:

• MD5 (all types)
  
• SHA1 (all types)
  
• MyBB/IPB
  
• Vbulletin
  
• PHPAss
  
• bCrypt
  

Want a hash type added to our database? Let us know!
Hash Count Currently: 12,000,000,000
Live Statistics

Contributors
Repentance - Developer & Provider of password lists
True Demon - Thanks for the awesome password lists!
๖ۣۜPozdrav - Thanks for the Signature!
chick3nman - You've been a great help with cracking & tips


Wear our signature!
Show your support for this awesome program by wearing this signature!

Code

[align=center][url=https://hackforums.net/showthread.php?tid=4961877][img]https://i.imgur.com/eSpWvc1.png[/img][/url][/align]

Hashing + Methods

By downloading you accept the following terms:

• You will not abuse this program
  
• You will not copy the program, give it out as your own or post it elsewhere without giving credit (with credit it's fine)
  

Downloads

Download: http://ow.ly/jjJI306YJkE
Virusscan .exe: https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/c0462...481304165/
Virusscan .zip: https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/ee93b...481304048/

Give feedback and show me what you think!

Vouches & Opinions

This looks absolutely, balls-to-the-walls awesome! CyberGuard is a personal friend and I totally vouch for his helpful attitude, knowledge, and definitely this hash-db. His quality is demonstrated throughout his history here on HF. Looking forward to seeing this grow. Let me know if I can be of assistance? 🤝

Nice hash cracking service dude!

Seems like this project is rapidly growing, I wish you good luck with it.

Yeah, like LegitBytes said: Good luck!
I really like this project! It's a fair challenge for you and also - since you're sharing it for free - a nice help for everyone interested in this on HF.

[chick3nman]

We currently support these hashes for decryption:

• MD5
  
• MD5x2
  
• MD5x3
  
• MD5(SHA1())
  
• SHA1
  
• SHA1x2
  
• SHA1x3
  
• SHA1(MD5())
  
• SHA512
  

Want a hash type added to our database? Let us know!
Hash Count Currently: 200000

Encryption + Methods

Coded in VB.NET
VirusScan: https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/c1d6f...440430636/

By downloading you accept the following terms:

• You will not abuse this program
  
• You know every encrypted plain is saved to our database so we can expand
  
• You will not copy the program, give it out as your own or post it elsewhere without giving credit (with credit it's fine)
  

Support me x2: http://adf.ly/1NFUvl
Support me: http://adf.ly/1NFUlI
Download: https://mega.nz/#!vsB0GCKK!f-3wCzHRA4xib...C3xORsgG94

Give feedback and tell what you think!

What Database/Table are you pulling the plaintexts from? Just a personal one? Would probably be a cool idea to include some of the smaller rainbow tables(1-6Alpha, 1-9 Numeric, etc.) just to be comprehensive since you aren't accepting salted hashes.

[CyberGuard]

What Database/Table are you pulling the plaintexts from? Just a personal one? Would probably be a cool idea to include some of the smaller rainbow tables(1-6Alpha, 1-9 Numeric, etc.) just to be comprehensive since you aren't accepting salted hashes.

I bought a NAS server where I'm hosting the database on.
I set up a system to auto-split tables every 1,000,000 (tell me if you have an more optimal number for table size)

MD5-1 -> 1,000,000 Rows
MD5-2 -> 1,000,000 Rows
MD5-3 -> 153,485 Rows
SHA1-1-> 1,000,000 Rows
SHA1-2-> 938,143 Rows
SHA5-1-> 492,132 Rows

This gives an overview of how I currently manage it.
The most time is put into seeing if a plain was seen before in one of the MD5 tables (that contain all plains so far). Takes 100ms on average right now.
plain insertion takes ~1ms.

EDIT: I found a faster way to do it and decreased the checking time from 100ms to 0.1ms by using TOP 1 instead of COUNT()

I'm having hashtopus insert every cracked hash into the database as well.

[chick3nman]

I bought a NAS server where I'm hosting the database on.
I set up a system to auto-split tables every 1,000,000 (tell me if you have an more optimal number for table size)

MD5-1 -> 1,000,000 Rows
MD5-2 -> 1,000,000 Rows
MD5-3 -> 153,485 Rows
SHA1-1-> 1,000,000 Rows
SHA1-2-> 938,143 Rows
SHA5-1-> 492,132 Rows

This gives an overview of how I currently manage it.
The most time is put into seeing if a plain was seen before in one of the MD5 tables (that contain all plains so far). Takes 100ms on average right now.
plain insertion takes ~1ms.

Ok. Did you download any public plain tables or Rainbow tables or is it built out of hashes you've personally collected?

[CyberGuard]

Ok. Did you download any public plain tables or Rainbow tables or is it built out of hashes you've personally collected?

Currently it's one that I personally collected from hashtopus mainly. (by editing server.php we used curl's multi handle to send the cracked plains to the NAS who would then encrypt them using our 'methods')

the methods are the ones you're able to use for 'cracking' (lookup)


Examples of how we did MD5.
Note that "" at the end? That's for possible Salts that could be added in the future. (we took it into consideration)

[chick3nman]

Currently it's one that I personally collected from hashtopus mainly. (by editing server.php we used curl's multi handle to send the cracked plains to the NAS who would then encrypt them using our 'methods')

the methods are the ones you're able to use for 'cracking' (lookup)


Examples of how we did MD5.
Note that "" at the end? That's for possible Salts that could be added in the future. (we took it into consideration)

Salted hashes are much faster cracked through straight dictionary attack(basically lookup with the hashes computed on the fly rather than stored) than through table storage and lookup. If the plain is "qwerty" and that's the third line of my dictionary, I will be able to crack all equivalent salted hashes of all salting structures in the same amount of time(unless the hashing algorithm itself is slower). The method of storing plains only and computing the hashes for comparison upon retrieval MASSIVELY saves on storage space and possibly search time, though it requires more computing power so a NAS system would not be suitable for that type of setup. Lookup tables of your style are not fit for salted hash lookup, that's the reason people started salting hashes, to break rainbow/lookup table effectiveness. Moving to a system where hashes are computed on the fly would be more effective for salted hashes but would require additional hardware.

[CyberGuard]

Salted hashes are much faster cracked through straight dictionary attack(basically lookup with the hashes computed on the fly rather than stored) than through table storage and lookup. If the plain is "qwerty" and that's the third line of my dictionary, I will be able to crack all equivalent salted hashes of all salting structures in the same amount of time(unless the hashing algorithm itself is slower). The method of storing plains only and computing the hashes for comparison upon retrieval MASSIVELY saves on storage space and possibly search time, though it requires more computing power so a NAS system would not be suitable for that type of setup. Lookup tables of your style are not fit for salted hash lookup, that's the reason people started salting hashes, to break rainbow/lookup table effectiveness. Moving to a system where hashes are computed on the fly would be more effective for salted hashes but would require additional hardware.

In regards to that, I'm aware that the memory time tradeoff efficiency has greatly decreased over the years, but still effective for non-salting methods.

I also found out that the TOP 1 query didn't work correctly so I'm still stuck at 100+ms for checking if a plain exists.
using a method like this: SELECT 1 FROM `MD5-1` WHERE `plain`=:plain limit 1
quite a shame.

But I want to expand the normal type of hashes and I'm using this program to add to the database as well.
The more people use it, the more plains & hashes get added to the database.

[chick3nman]

In regards to that, I'm aware that the memory time tradeoff efficiency has greatly decreased over the years, but still effective for non-salting methods.

I also found out that the TOP 1 query didn't work correctly so I'm still stuck at 100+ms for checking if a plain exists.
using a method like this: SELECT 1 FROM `MD5-1` WHERE `plain`=:plain limit 1
quite a shame.

But I want to expand the normal type of hashes and I'm using this program to add to the database as well.
The more people use it, the more plains & hashes get added to the database.

100+ms isn't terrible for database lookup, though as the database grows it can get pretty slow pretty fast. Might need to think ahead a bit for how to handle things like 15+million plains being added to it(I've got at least that many for the algorithms listed).

[CyberGuard]

100+ms isn't terrible for database lookup, though as the database grows it can get pretty slow pretty fast. Might need to think ahead a bit for how to handle things like 15+million plains being added to it(I've got at least that many for the algorithms listed).

I currently don't have the intention of adding that many plains at the same time.
But if you added them right now through the insertion, it would create 16 databases. Each would take 100ms to search though.

[chick3nman]

I currently don't have the intention of adding that many plains at the same time.
But if you added them right now through the insertion, it would create 16 databases. Each would take 100ms to search though.

Again, not too slow. Just if several people are making requests at the same time, it can add up pretty fast once they start slowing each other down.

[kitnkiller]

I dont want to bring you down, but 6 million hashes isnt enough. My GPU can bruteforce up to 100 million hashes PER SECOND, so you really have to expand your database.

If you want to have usefull rainbowtables, they have to be big. This means you gotta have good performance:
- Have a few GBs or terrabytes of storage
- Search for the fastest database engine which can hold much data (so you don't have to split your tables)
- Search for quick insert methods (not 1 query per insert, ...)

[chick3nman]

I dont want to bring you down, but 6 million hashes isnt enough. My GPU can bruteforce up to 100 million hashes PER SECOND, so you really have to expand your database.

If you want to have usefull rainbowtables, they have to be big. This means you gotta have good performance:
- Have a few GBs or terrabytes of storage
- Search for the fastest database engine which can hold much data (so you don't have to split your tables)
- Search for quick insert methods (not 1 query per insert, ...)

For the record, mine can do 25billion per second on MD5. Which is still useless with a poor attack, but that doesn't seem like the purpose here(unless i misread the intent, which is totally possible). This database isn't going to be a super powerful comprehensive database from what i can tell, as much as it is going to be a place where recently/commonly searched hashes will be collected. Unpopular hashes will be left out naturally by rare use. For those, of course a gpu with a good attack will be stronger, but this could still be useful to people without that power. I do agree with your suggestions though. Needs to be much bigger and much faster for actual use.

[CyberGuard]

For the record, mine can do 25billion per second on MD5. Which is still useless with a poor attack, but that doesn't seem like the purpose here(unless i misread the intent, which is totally possible). This database isn't going to be a super powerful comprehensive database from what i can tell, as much as it is going to be a place where recently/commonly searched hashes will be collected. Unpopular hashes will be left out naturally by rare use. For those, of course a gpu with a good attack will be stronger, but this could still be useful to people without that power. I do agree with your suggestions though. Needs to be much bigger and much faster for actual use.

Considering the fact that it went up yesterday, I think it's a pretty decent system.
I'm planning on adding a function to process & add new lists.
My laptop GPU can do 7 Billion a second (7Gh/s) on MD5 :3

[chick3nman]

Considering the fact that it went up yesterday, I think it's a pretty decent system.
I'm planning on adding a function to process & add new lists.
My laptop GPU can do 7 Billion a second (7Gh/s) on MD5 :3

Yep. And that's pretty good for a laptop. What specs?

[CyberGuard]

Yep. And that's pretty good for a laptop. What specs?

MSI GTX 980M and 16GB Ram.
i7 intel processor at 2.5GHz

since it's a stupid NVIDIA card, it has slower speeds than my other AMD Radeon 7850 on certain attack types and methods.

example->IPB 2+ on dictionary attack
AMD card: ~6500h/s
NVIDIA card: ~900h/s

example->MD5 brute force (mask)
AMD card: ~1000Mh/s
NVIDIA card: ~4000Mh/s