lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PROPOSAL/PATCH] Fortuna PRNG in /dev/random
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 05:34:52PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > Woh there. Didn't you just say "see, these hashes are weakened. That's
> > bad". Now I just demonstrated the same thing with your SHA1 implementation
> > and you throw that "red-herring" phrase out again?
>
> No, what I'm saying is that crypto primitives can get weakened; this
> is a fact of life. SHA-0, MD4, MD5, etc. are now useless as general
> purpose cryptographic hashes. Fortuna makes the assumptions that
> crypto primitives will never break, as it relies on them so heavily.
> I have a problem with this, since I remember ten years ago when people
> were as confident in MD5 as you appear to be in SHA-256 today.

http://eprint.iacr.org/2004/207.pdf

SHA-256 showing indications of weakness. Fortuna's algorithms can be
replaced at compile-time. I may even consider doing them at run-time.

> Crypto academics are fond of talking about how you can "prove" that
> Fortuna is secure. But that proof handwaves around the fact that we
> have no capability of proving whether SHA-1, or SHA-256, is truly
> secure.

Our issues are that we are *both* handwaving.

JLC
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.073 / U:0.976 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site