On 2006-11-27 23:52, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> Actually, our current /dev/random implementation is secure even if the
> cryptographic algorithms can be broken under traditional circumstances.
This is far from obvious, and in my opinion incorrect. David explained
this very well in his follow-up. Other pertinent references are
Gutterman Pinkas Reinman '06 [1], Barak and Halevi '05 [2, Section 5.1],
and the "/dev/random is probably not" thread [3].
The current algorithm is probably OK for casual users in normal
circumstances, but advertising it as absolutely secure is dangerously
misleading.
Eran
[1] http://www.gutterman.net/publications/GuttermanPinkasReinman2006.pdf
[2] http://eprint.iacr.org/2005/029
[3] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg04215.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
