Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:03:48 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> To: soralx@cydem.org Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Quiet computer Message-ID: <44wt738057.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <200610140308.00451.soralx@cydem.org> (soralx@cydem.org's message of "Sat, 14 Oct 2006 03:07:59 -0700") References: <78ED28FACE63744386D68D8A9D1CF5D4209C94@MAIL.corp.lumeta.com> <20061012075101.Y5008@ketralnis.com> <200610140308.00451.soralx@cydem.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
soralx@cydem.org writes: >> > mentioned cpu, but a 100x speed difference? That doesn't seem realistic >> > to me (although if those are valid results, I'd be pretty happy with >> > that)... >> >> Well, the Via Padlock has a hardware random-number generator, so the >> idea was to test that. It doesn't claim to be fast, just to be truly random > > Precisely. However, speed of the crypto engine should be directly > proportional to a peak speed of the RNG, That statement makes no sense to me. Why would the RNG be relevant after the session keys are established? > so I thought that it's > slow speed might confirm that the engine is being used, and is > simply slow. I don't really care how fast the crypto engine is on my Via system. I just care that it offloads the ALU. I haven't gotten around to proving whether (and by how much) it does so. > Also, we didn't really test where are those random bits coming from :P > Is the TRNG used by default, or some tinkering's in order to make it work? > > BTW... `ubench`? :) Not impressive.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44wt738057.fsf>