Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:07:33 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: Jonathan Anderson <jonathan@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Collecting entropy from device_attach() times. Message-ID: <20120920230733.4a305e0f@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <10CD8D9A9ADB484694DE4DCBD9594FAB@FreeBSD.org> References: <20120918211422.GA1400@garage.freebsd.pl> <A8FD98DD94774D00B4E5F78D3174C1B4@gmail.com> <20120919192923.GA1416@garage.freebsd.pl> <CAG5KPzyxSMZ8X4RmEhCHA=dHTLUw5mOUf-oveJtOPx8im3dpeQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120919214624.2f6682a2@gumby.homeunix.com> <10CD8D9A9ADB484694DE4DCBD9594FAB@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:32:36 +0100 Jonathan Anderson wrote: > On Wednesday, 19 September 2012 at 21:46, RW wrote: > > extra bits may make the difference between secure and insecure > > I'm sorry, this may be a bit pedantic, but I have to object to the > terms "secure" and "insecure" used without qualification. :) Perhaps > you mean "predictable" and "unpredictable"? No I meant "extra bits may make the difference between /dev/random being secure and being insecure". Sorry if it wasn't clear.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120920230733.4a305e0f>