Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 17 May 1996 10:03:48 +0200 (MET DST) | From | "Martin.Dalecki" <> | Subject | Re: CONFIG_RANDOM (compromise?) |
| |
On Thu, 16 May 1996, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> 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..... > > > 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 Beleve it or not: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between random and equally distributed number sequences. And there is only one way to break into my Linux box wihout any physical interaction, like knocking my house door out: TELEPATIC.
Im simply not connected at home! And I suppose that I'm not alone.
Marcin
|  |