[dsfjdssdfsd] Should secure RNGs be a MUST?
Dan Brown <dbrown@certicom.com> Tue, 11 March 2014 17:08 UTC
Return-Path: <dbrown@certicom.com>
X-Original-To: dsfjdssdfsd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dsfjdssdfsd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0AAB1A0765 for <dsfjdssdfsd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <CmdnNsprn199>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CmdnNsprn199 for <dsfjdssdfsd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-p01.blackberry.com (smtp-p01.blackberry.com [208.65.78.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E8201A0764 for <dsfjdssdfsd@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0984738059=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from xct106cnc.rim.net ([10.65.161.206]) by mhs210cnc.rim.net with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 11 Mar 2014 13:08:08 -0400
Received: from XMB116CNC.rim.net ([fe80::45d:f4fe:6277:5d1b]) by XCT106CNC.rim.net ([fe80::d824:6c98:60dc:3918%16]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 13:08:07 -0400
From: Dan Brown <dbrown@certicom.com>
To: "'dsfjdssdfsd@ietf.org'" <dsfjdssdfsd@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Should secure RNGs be a MUST?
Thread-Index: Ac89SpfZIQJem8b1RUqwinkMRXNkhw==
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:08:06 +0000
Message-ID: <810C31990B57ED40B2062BA10D43FBF5C523AD@XMB116CNC.rim.net>
Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.160.251]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dsfjdssdfsd/57TDOTSAtsIWE_VFUjychf-OSt0
Subject: [dsfjdssdfsd] Should secure RNGs be a MUST?
X-BeenThere: dsfjdssdfsd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The dsfjdssdfsd list provides a venue for discussion of randomness in IETF protocols, for example related to updating RFC 4086." <dsfjdssdfsd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dsfjdssdfsd>, <mailto:dsfjdssdfsd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dsfjdssdfsd/>
List-Post: <mailto:dsfjdssdfsd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dsfjdssdfsd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dsfjdssdfsd>, <mailto:dsfjdssdfsd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:08:33 -0000
--------------------------------------------------------------------- This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
- Re: [dsfjdssdfsd] Should secure RNGs be a MUST? Dan Brown
- [dsfjdssdfsd] Should secure RNGs be a MUST? Dan Brown
- Re: [dsfjdssdfsd] Should secure RNGs be a MUST? Alyssa Rowan
- Re: [dsfjdssdfsd] Should secure RNGs be a MUST? Alyssa Rowan
- Re: [dsfjdssdfsd] Should secure RNGs be a MUST? dan
- Re: [dsfjdssdfsd] Should secure RNGs be a MUST? Stephen Farrell
- Re: [dsfjdssdfsd] Should secure RNGs be a MUST? Sandy Harris