Re: Security Engineering vs. Crypto Academics... (was strengthening /dev/urandom)
From: David Wagner (daw_at_taverner.cs.berkeley.edu)
Date: 08/31/04
- Next message: Niklas Olsson: "Re: question about certificate verifiy using TLS"
- Previous message: Patrick J. LoPresti: "Re: Security Engineering vs. Crypto Academics... (was strengthening /dev/urandom)"
- In reply to: Theodore Y. Ts'o: "Re: Security Engineering vs. Crypto Academics... (was strengthening /dev/urandom)"
- Next in thread: Guy Macon: "Re: Security Engineering vs. Crypto Academics..."
- Reply: Guy Macon: "Re: Security Engineering vs. Crypto Academics..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:29:14 +0000 (UTC)
Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>Umm.... either this "contortion" (which takes 3 lines of C code!) is
>trivial, in which case it doesn't make the analysis any harder, or it
>isn't, in which case it might help. You can't have it both ways....
Well, every trivial tweak makes analysis a teeny bit harder.
Add 10 or 20 trivial contortions, and analysis can get really messy.
- Next message: Niklas Olsson: "Re: question about certificate verifiy using TLS"
- Previous message: Patrick J. LoPresti: "Re: Security Engineering vs. Crypto Academics... (was strengthening /dev/urandom)"
- In reply to: Theodore Y. Ts'o: "Re: Security Engineering vs. Crypto Academics... (was strengthening /dev/urandom)"
- Next in thread: Guy Macon: "Re: Security Engineering vs. Crypto Academics..."
- Reply: Guy Macon: "Re: Security Engineering vs. Crypto Academics..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]