mailing list archives
Re: /dev/random is probably not
From: "Michael Gnau" <MGnau () ctr pcusa org>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:30:23 -0400
Alexey Toptygin <alexeyt () freeshell org> 7/6/2005 7:37:00 AM >>>
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Jack Lloyd wrote:
Assuming the PRNG is any good, it shouldn't matter if an attacker can
manipulate such timings, because (by definition) a good PRNG will still
behave correctly even if an attacker does feed it lots of deliberately
bad data (as long as the PRNG also has been fed with a sufficient amount
of unguessable 'good' input as well, of course).
In the case of Linux, this still causes the estimate of how much 'good'
entropy is in the pool to be inflated. Some applications may rely on the
fact that /dev/random is backed by 'real' entropy, whereas /dev/urandom
can be pure PRNG output.
IMO, all this discussion is well and good, but it would be much more
productive for someone to settle the question empirically.
Re: /dev/random is probably not Robert Foxworth (Jul 05)
Re: /dev/random is probably not Michael Gnau (Jul 07)