Re: [dsfjdssdfsd] Any plans for drafts or discussions on here?

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 22, 2014, at 10:40 AM, Dan Harkins <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  To minimize the possibility of someone borking their DRBG implementation
> we can include some test vectors-- instantiating with A produces state of
> B; reseeding of state B with C produces state D; generating with state D
> produces E, etc.

If we could be sure that there was no way for the mechanisms needed to test those vectors could possibly appear in an implementation, that would be great. If we can't be sure of that, we are proposing an implementer include something that could cause a catastrophic failure if those inputs are accidentally left in.

Regardless, that's not what Don's draft does.

>  The more people that implement anything will increase the probability of
> a broken implementation somewhere, I definitely agree. But it is an accepted
> economic truth that relying on a single source for anything is a bad idea.

That seems like a strawman: who says that there is a "single source" of ideas for how to implement randomness? Three large server OSs (Linux, FreeBSD, Windows) all do it differently.

--Paul Hoffman