From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 9 11:50:32 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC46E16A4D2; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 11:50:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (storm.FreeBSD.org.uk [194.242.157.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F6843D55; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 11:50:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (Ugrondar@localhost [127.0.0.1]) i39IoUWc082768; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 19:50:30 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: (from Ugrondar@localhost)i39IoUuG082767; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 19:50:30 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) 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])i39IYi0w060497; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 19:34:45 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) From: Mark Murray Message-Id: <200404091834.i39IYi0w060497@grimreaper.grondar.org> To: Nate Lawson In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Apr 2004 10:38:22 PDT." <20040409103618.A48723@root.org> Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 19:34:44 +0100 Sender: mark@grondar.org X-Spam-Score: 4 (****) FROM_NO_LOWER,MSGID_FROM_MTA_SHORT X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/modules/random Makefile src/sys/dev/random harvest.c hash.c hash.h nehemiah.c nehemiah.h probe.c randomdev.c randomdev.h randomdev_soft.c randomdev_soft.h yar X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 18:50:32 -0000 Nate Lawson writes: > This is a huge mistake. At the very minimum, I take it you never read our > paper. > > http://www.cryptography.com/resources/whitepapers/index.html Actually, I have. I read it again, now, to be sure. Nothing it says suggests that what I did here is a "huge mistake". Nearest I get is the suggestion that the output from the on-chip RNG is used as a source for a hash function (like Yarrow). I feel that is overkill, and that the output of the on-chip RNG is sufficient. M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH