Re: strengthening /dev/urandom
From: Bill Unruh (unruh_at_string.physics.ubc.ca)
Date: 08/27/04
- Next message: Bill Unruh: "Re: strengthening /dev/urandom"
- Previous message: Donald Hines: "Re: weakest link"
- In reply to: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: strengthening /dev/urandom"
- Next in thread: Paul Rubin: "Re: strengthening /dev/urandom"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 27 Aug 2004 15:48:59 GMT
Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> writes:
]>
]> Real as state-compromise attacks clearly are, I have to agree
]> that Shen's issues deserve to be ignored. I cannot fathom how
]> anyone who takes the subject the slightest bit seriously could
]> fail to come up with a more realistic state compromise than
]> "the opponent being able to control one's mouse".
]In the attachment I reproduce some paragraphs of what David
]Wagner wrote. To be fair, it should be mentioned that he
The questioon is whether in a hardware based random number generator, one
should consider it as a flaw that the output depends on the input from the
hardware. Should, or can, the out of the RNG be made independent of the
input from the hardware? Wagner's comment is that the Linux RNG accepts
input from hardware (four sources) and that if one were comprimised it
would be bad at present, and suggests that it would be better if the output
of the RNG were strong even if that one source werer comprimised.
Put this way, I thing the question is a bit silly. Of course a hardware
based RNG depends on the hardware and if the hardware is comprimised so is
the RNG. But it is hard to see how this is problem without any realistic
model of how the hardware could be comprimised.
]himself did concede that the mouse example is not realistic
]but he continued to stress that there are many other
]conceivable attacks. The latter is true in sofar as one
Are there? None have been displayed.
]considers 'all' possibile scenarios, in particular the
]case where one were the person that is currently most
]wanted by the US government. (I think that any use of e.g.
IF the hardware is comprimised, then it would seem far far far more
probable that the software is comprimised.
- Next message: Bill Unruh: "Re: strengthening /dev/urandom"
- Previous message: Donald Hines: "Re: weakest link"
- In reply to: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: strengthening /dev/urandom"
- Next in thread: Paul Rubin: "Re: strengthening /dev/urandom"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|