Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:02:50 -0700 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: Per olof Ljungmark <peo@intersonic.se> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /dev/random question Message-ID: <7C29870C-0AF0-41FC-98C6-C79FDC438474@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <46E9A455.4090703@intersonic.se> References: <46E94F9A.6050707@intersonic.se> <20070913153630.GA9448@slackbox.xs4all.nl> <20070913173155.0bad12b2@gumby.homeunix.com> <20070913174537.GA11683@slackbox.xs4all.nl> <46E9A455.4090703@intersonic.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sep 13, 2007, at 1:57 PM, Per olof Ljungmark wrote: >> On the website it says that the original yarrow algorithm is no >> longer >> supported. It seems to have been replaced by the fortuna algorithm. >> I can't see from the source if /usr/src/sys/dev/random/yarrow.* >> use the >> original yarrow algorithm, or the improved yarrow-160 aka fortuna. >> The use of >> crypto/rijndael/rijndael-api-fst.h and crypto/sha2/sha2.h seem to >> indicate the latter though. > > Should I conclude then that randomness is sufficient and > performance is a non-issue? The randomness is considered to be strong, but you can perform the NIST FIPS-140 tests against /dev/random and decide for yourself. As for performance, I get about 12MB/s out of /dev/random on a ~1 GHz CPU, which seems to be quite decent... -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7C29870C-0AF0-41FC-98C6-C79FDC438474>