From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 10 01:55:12 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 EE53016A4D0; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 01:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (storm.FreeBSD.org.uk [194.242.157.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAC9243D1D; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 01:55:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (Ugrondar@localhost [127.0.0.1]) i3A8t6Wc050180; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:55:06 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: (from Ugrondar@localhost)i3A8t6ko050179; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:55:06 +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])i3A8sa0w066414; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:54:36 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) From: Mark Murray Message-Id: <200404100854.i3A8sa0w066414@grimreaper.grondar.org> To: Bruce M Simpson In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:27:05 BST." <20040410082705.GR710@empiric.dek.spc.org> Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:54:36 +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 cc: Nate Lawson 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: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 08:55:13 -0000 Bruce M Simpson writes: > > > 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. > > I'm inclined to trust your judgement here on this, Mark, but Nate does > have a valid point; we need to be sure that the entropy sources are of > sufficiently high quality or we risk compromising the system. > > If you could cite some independent tests for the VIA C3 on-chip RNG > that would be very helpful to all. How about Nate's paper? It gives the VIA C3 a very high assessment WRT the quality of the entropy delivered. If it is felt that further whitening of the VIA C3 RNG is needed, then I believe that Yarrow would be overkill, and that a much smaller hash function will be sufficient. M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH