From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 11 11:56:17 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DC56106566B for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:56:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ache@vniz.net) Received: from vniz.net (vniz.net [194.87.13.69]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CEA48FC12 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:56:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vniz.net (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8BBtvfZ006130; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:55:58 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from ache@vniz.net) Received: (from ache@localhost) by localhost (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q8BBtv1D006128; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:55:57 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from ache) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:55:56 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov To: Doug Barton Message-ID: <20120911115556.GA6045@vniz.net> Mail-Followup-To: Andrey Chernov , Doug Barton , Arthur Mesh , freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG, RW , Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav , Xin Li References: <20120906224703.GD89120@x96.org> <20120907015157.GA29497@server.rulingia.com> <20120910135218.GA68128@dragon.NUXI.org> <504E343A.4020802@FreeBSD.org> <86pq5tu1zr.fsf@ds4.des.no> <504E3DAB.3090000@FreeBSD.org> <86fw6pu0l0.fsf@ds4.des.no> <504E4765.1020909@FreeBSD.org> <20120910203210.GB90314@x96.org> <504E503C.7020903@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <504E503C.7020903@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Arthur Mesh , freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG, RW , Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav , Xin Li Subject: Re: svn commit: r239569 - head/etc/rc.d X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:56:17 -0000 On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 01:40:28PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > > 2) reusing entropy seeds is a bad thing - for this I don't have > > empirical proof. But I have Bruce Schneier's word. > > And as I have stated repeatedly, you and David are misapplying what > you're reading. Just my 2c. In case we talking about boot process, this is not reusing of entropy seed (i.e. using the same one second time), but saving-restoring its state instead. Remember - the machine is not active after the very last saving (I assume we can safely ignore panic cases due to their exceptional nature). -- http://ache.vniz.net/