From owner-freebsd-current Sun Feb 2 11: 6:55 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8C7737B409; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 11:06:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (storm.FreeBSD.org.uk [194.242.157.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36C7043F75; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 11:06:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (Ugrondar@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h12J6pLf079002; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 19:06:51 GMT (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: (from Ugrondar@localhost) by storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) with UUCP id h12J6p4N079001; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 19:06:51 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: storm.FreeBSD.org.uk: Ugrondar set sender to mark@grondar.org using -f Received: from grondar.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grimreaper.grondar.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h12J0IaX050026; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 21:00:18 +0200 (SAST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) From: Mark Murray Message-Id: <200302021900.h12J0IaX050026@grimreaper.grondar.org> To: phk@freebsd.org Cc: "Andrey A. Chernov" , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rand() is broken In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 02 Feb 2003 19:47:12 +0100." <32212.1044211632@critter.freebsd.dk> Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 19:00:18 +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG phk@freebsd.org writes: > In message <200302021836.h12Ia2aX049696@grimreaper.grondar.org>, Mark Murray > wr > ites: > > >We have most of this, and RC4 can deliver. RC4's "licence" is > >fine. Call it "ArCFour" and there is no problem. The code is > >small, fast and repeatable, and meets conditions 1-4 above. > > There are some concerns about RC4's strength and predictability. Not here. We are talking statistical randomness, not cryptographic. RC4 is juuuust fine. > In cases were we just want trivial "randomness", this doesn't matter, > but when we start to seed it with /dev/random to get good randomness > we to be more careful. Sure. srandomdev() needs to "burn" some output. > Maybe we should spend an AES on it, just in case ? Hold that thought. The "moral equivalent" of 'dd if=random() of=/dev/null bs=1 count=4096' is enough for now. Any problems, and I'll be right with you! M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message