From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jul 17 1:41:50 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from grimreaper.grondar.za (markm.ops.uunet.co.za [196.31.2.167]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F41C37B816; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 01:41:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@grondar.za) Received: from grimreaper.grondar.za (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grimreaper.grondar.za (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA00459; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 10:41:00 +0200 (SAST) (envelope-from mark@grimreaper.grondar.za) Message-Id: <200007170841.KAA00459@grimreaper.grondar.za> To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Mark Murray , "Andrey A. Chernov" , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: randomdev entropy gathering is really weak References: <672.963815058@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <672.963815058@critter.freebsd.dk> ; from Poul-Henning Kamp "Mon, 17 Jul 2000 08:24:18 +0200." Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 10:40:59 +0200 From: Mark Murray Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > In message <200007170607.IAA05866@grimreaper.grondar.za>, Mark Murray writes: > > >getnanotime() is already extensively used; > > I looked at that use, but as far as I can tell, it is only used as a > flag at this time, the bits returned by getnanotime() does not end up > in the entropy pool ? Not true; struct entropy contains nanotime and the harvested entropy; _both_ are hashed in the reseed operation. > I'm not dissatisfied about that btw, the output from getnanotime() > is not very random at all, unless you dive into the timecounter > code to find out what the parameters are. I agree that it is not (very) random; however cclock jitter and keystroke timing can help thwart the bad guys... M -- Mark Murray Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message