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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Sat, 25 January 2014 19:35 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 AD43D1A005A for <dsfjdssdfsd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 11:35:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=no
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 A2-KoPw5TjK0 for <dsfjdssdfsd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 11:35:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9177D1A002F for <dsfjdssdfsd@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 11:35:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-67.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.67]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s0PJF7gI077238 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 25 Jan 2014 12:15:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-67.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.67] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C05AD8B3-7DC3-43ED-886C-776097A09509"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <00C069FD01E0324C9FFCADF539701DB3BBF1BE0E@sc9-ex2k10mb1.corp.yaanatech.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 11:35:11 -0800
Message-Id: <2C723E08-FB16-4D03-9371-94D164111E5B@vpnc.org>
References: <52DD996F.3040708@cs.tcd.ie> <CAF4+nEHEWaSr3HMuGtQ=vQzuuhkTo2uNpedUTNgmT5NsWRsTfA@mail.gmail.com> <30316745-8091-46AD-95A1-407757489FF9@vpnc.org> <1737731959.20140122185149@gmail.com> <03f201cf17ee$e34ccbf0$a9e663d0$@hosed.org> <15541579.20140123214020@gmail.com> <00C069FD01E0324C9FFCADF539701DB3BBF18E51@sc9-ex2k10mb1.corp.yaanatech.com> <204592464.20140123233807@gmail.com> <00C069FD01E0324C9FFCADF539701DB3BBF18FD6@sc9-ex2k10mb1.corp.yaanatech.com> <1825449796.20140124180225@gmail.com> <00C069FD01E0324C9FFCADF539701DB3BBF1BE0E@sc9-ex2k10mb1.corp.yaanatech.com>
To: Michael Hammer <michael.hammer@yaanatech.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Cc: "dsfjdssdfsd@ietf.org" <dsfjdssdfsd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dsfjdssdfsd] Any plans for drafts or discussions on here?
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: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 19:35:23 -0000

On Jan 25, 2014, at 8:16 AM, Michael Hammer <michael.hammer@yaanatech.com> wrote:

> So, if you mix a non-random input with a random input, 
> using a deterministic algorithm, the output will be more random?
> That doesn't seem right to me.

That's because it is not right for many reasons. To start, you haven't defined "non-random" and "more random".

A better description:

Value A has X bits that cannot be known to adversary M. Value B has Y bits that cannot be known to M.

Securely mixing A and B into a value C whose length is greater than or equal to (X + Y) will result in C having (X + Y) bits that cannot be known by M. If C's length is less than (A + B), every bit in C cannot be known by M.

In your question above, the fact that B might be 0 is irrelevant to the calculation. 

--Paul Hoffman