From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Oct 14 14:04:09 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38E216A47B
	for <freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:04:09 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org)
Received: from mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net
	[69.17.117.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE6CF43DAA
	for <freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:03:49 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org)
Received: (qmail 14815 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2006 14:03:49 -0000
Received: from dsl092-078-145.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO be-well.ilk.org)
	([66.92.78.145]) (envelope-sender <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org>)
	by mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
	for <soralx@cydem.org>; 14 Oct 2006 14:03:49 -0000
Received: by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix, from userid 1147)
	id D0E722842E; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:03:48 -0400 (EDT)
To: soralx@cydem.org
References: <78ED28FACE63744386D68D8A9D1CF5D4209C94@MAIL.corp.lumeta.com>
	<20061012075101.Y5008@ketralnis.com>
	<200610140308.00451.soralx@cydem.org>
From: Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:03:48 -0400
In-Reply-To: <200610140308.00451.soralx@cydem.org> (soralx@cydem.org's message
	of "Sat, 14 Oct 2006 03:07:59 -0700")
Message-ID: <44wt738057.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (berkeley-unix)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Quiet computer
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware <freebsd-hardware.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hardware-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hardware>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hardware-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hardware-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:04:09 -0000

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.