From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 16 20:55:55 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97ED116A417 for ; Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:55:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com) Received: from mxout-03.mxes.net (mxout-03.mxes.net [216.86.168.178]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78BA413C458 for ; Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:55:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com. (unknown [87.81.140.128]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38F385193F for ; Sun, 16 Sep 2007 16:55:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:55:50 +0100 From: RW To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20070916215550.65e09a71@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <200709161521.39955.fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> References: <20070913153630.GA9448@slackbox.xs4all.nl> <20070916020126.06cf26ac@gumby.homeunix.com.> <200709161521.39955.fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.0.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i386-portbld-freebsd6.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: /dev/random question X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:55:55 -0000 On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:21:38 +0200 Mel wrote: > On Sunday 16 September 2007 03:01:26 RW wrote: > > > Essentially what has happened is that /dev/random has been > > abandoned in favour of a better /dev/urandom, and that seems to be > > a bit high-handed to me. > > Not high-handed. Logical. The difference between /dev/random > and /dev/urandom was that /dev/random could block IO if it didn't > have enough entropy and /dev/urandom guaranteed to not block. The > underlying algorithm creating the random was at the discretion of the > implementers. AFAIK it's all at the discretion of the implementers, unless someone can quote a standard. > So what you had was a highway (urandom) and a road with > traffic lights (random). The need for the traffic lights has been > removed, so there is no logic in not calling it a highway. Wasn't the highway /dev/urandom? > People > travelling the random road, will simply account for the possibility a > traffic light comes up, which never does. That's a poor analogy because they haven't improved /dev/random so it doesn't block, they've taken a /dev/urandom implementation and renamed it. In terms of your analogy they've blocked off the road, diverted everyone onto the highway, and renamed it to main street. Using Yarrow for /dev/random is not an intrinsically bad idea, but it is controversial.