Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 16 May 1996 11:48:20 -0400 | From | "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <> | Subject | Re: CONFIG_RANDOM (compromise?) |
| |
From: Albert Cahalan <albert@ccs.neu.edu> Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 20:16:00 -0400 (EDT)
Add an option called CONFIG_WEAK_RANDOM. When set, most of the calls to add randomness become NOPs and the pool becomes much smaller, perhaps only 256 bytes. A pseudo-random number generator is used, but we give it a kick every now and then with random data. Output from it gets hashed with existing code, such as the network or decompression CRC checks. Since most of the add randomness calls will be disabled, let the remaining ones add twice as many bits.
No, no, no, no, no.....
It seems that most of the people who are flaming on this topic have no idea how weak a pseudo-random number generator really is. Only a few values is all you generally need before you can completely predict the output of such a best.
Getting good random numbers is *hard*. If you're not really paranoid, you're probably doing it wrong, and someone who is clever can walk all over you. This has been proven again and again, with Netscape getting humiliated on the front page of the Wall Street Journal.
- Ted
|  |