X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:date:to:from:subject:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=iMHay ttCFnrQK59e7PTjUhIDfjsL4EcpQmWulH+/vap/uZ4x0TOQaL0mrrg/2tLbRDrGW gyYjWkTtzlcK491xAowddxYM+576/P9wL8vYNh5PbWJtoedkYDS4qAca7wt39h4X ib3fQ+SjW9BH5YmJNXx4gODRk9EJOz8ZAHtiRE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:date:to:from:subject:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type; s=default; bh=0ccr2iNBF3O GX0x/hVlAR0dEzZE=; b=WYwLweBKUwUXirOhg3sfDGrBovs7MgJ0r7HyhGbkaxa zvGR5jju1PBxvkTlix298MQRJAcat204Oxbxze6rbTKQZ/jwy7aF7duo+/I8Cwct SDFQ2QjzjXkIMyZ2fPtbuSAamr5Z8TkI/D9n2PxVpp/btqacqBSbGbdrpuviylCU = Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx.binnacle.cx Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20131015100723.066d3e48@binnacle.cx> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:19:21 -0400 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: starlight DOT 2013z3 AT binnacle DOT cx Subject: Re: /dev/random does not block, emits poor entropy In-Reply-To: <20131015140052.GE19383@calimero.vinschen.de> References: <6 DOT 2 DOT 5 DOT 6 DOT 2 DOT 20130919015353 DOT 03a25398 AT binnacle DOT cx> <20131015140052 DOT GE19383 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Score: -1 () ALL_TRUSTED Received-SPF: pass (mx.binnacle.cx: 172.29.87.10 is whitelisted by SPF-milter whitelist entry) Yes, this is great. Thank you! Subsequent to my post I learned more on the topic. Is complex and loaded with controversy. Many cryptographers assert that Linux's blocking implementation creates vulnerability to various timing attacks and that /dev/urandom is essentially the same as /dev/random on a practical level --is better for not blocking. But the Linex devs are smart folks and have yet to be convinced. . . Hardware RNG marketing is deceiving when it talks about "true" RNG since even quantum-effect number generators have non-random patterns that must be algorithmically cleansed. Rather than a "true" RNG or TRNG, one wants as CSPRNG (cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator) that combines a good source of hardware entropy and appropriate purifying algorithms. People get quite hot about the topic, and apparently the Dilbert cartoon applies at all times, regardless: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2001-10-25/ When the Federal government shutdown ends the pages here will contain good information (NSA influence over NIST not withstanding): http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/toolkit/rng/index.html At 16:00 10/15/2013 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >/dev/random. The new results with /dev/random are >now along the lines of: > > rngtest: bits received from input: 3059180032 > rngtest: FIPS 140-2 successes: 152857 > rngtest: FIPS 140-2 failures: 102 > [...] > >which is another ~30% better result. That >should be sufficient, IMHO. > > >Corinna > -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple