From owner-freebsd-current Sun Jul 30 15: 8:54 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F1737B7F1; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 15:08:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id PAA09172; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 15:08:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 15:08:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: Mark Murray Cc: Brian Fundakowski Feldman , current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: randomdev entropy gathering is really weak In-Reply-To: <200007300918.LAA07595@grimreaper.grondar.za> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Mark Murray wrote: > This is a reversion to the count-entropy-and-block model which I have > been fiercely resisting (and which argument I thought I had sucessfully > defended). Actually, I was waiting for your reply to Jeroen's question about changing the semantics of the random devices. I still maintain that as OS developers we can't predict the uses of this tool and that some users may require new entropy in every 256-bit output. I don't think that "near enough is good enough" is a valid excuse :-) Kris -- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message