Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261318AbVDSEdv (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:33:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261320AbVDSEdv (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:33:51 -0400 Received: from abraham.CS.Berkeley.EDU ([128.32.37.170]:60422 "EHLO abraham.cs.berkeley.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261318AbVDSEdt (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:33:49 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: not-for-mail From: daw@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) Newsgroups: isaac.lists.linux-kernel Subject: Re: Fortuna Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 04:31:47 +0000 (UTC) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Distribution: isaac Message-ID: References: <20050414141538.3651.qmail@science.horizon.com> <20050418191316.GL21897@waste.org> <20050419040116.GA6517@thunk.org> Reply-To: daw-usenet@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) NNTP-Posting-Host: taverner.cs.berkeley.edu X-Trace: abraham.cs.berkeley.edu 1113885107 1010 128.32.168.222 (19 Apr 2005 04:31:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@abraham.cs.berkeley.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 04:31:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Originator: daw@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1661 Lines: 28 Theodore Ts'o wrote: >For one, /dev/urandom and /dev/random don't use the same pool >(anymore). They used to, a long time ago, but certainly as of the >writing of the paper this was no longer true. This invalidates the >entire last paragraph of Section 5.3. Ok, you're right, this is a serious flaw, and one that I overlooked. Thanks for elaborating. (By the way, has anyone contacted to let them know about these two errors? Should I?) I see three remaining criticisms from their Section 5.3: 1) Due to the way the documentation describes /dev/random, many programmers will choose /dev/random by default. This default seems inappropriate and unfortunate. 2) There is a widespread perception that /dev/urandom's security is unproven and /dev/random's is proven. This perception is wrong. On a related topic, it is "not at all clear" that /dev/random provides information-theoretic security. 3) Other designs place less stress on the entropy estimator, and thus are more tolerant to failures of entropy estimation. A failure in the entropy estimator seems more likely than a failure in the cryptographic algorithms. These three criticisms look right to me. Apart from the merits or demerits of Section 5.3, the rest of the paper seemed to have some interesting ideas for how to simplify and possibly improve the /dev/random generator, which might be worth considering at some point. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/