IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-hoffman-tls-additional-random-ext (Additional Random

"Kemp, David P." <DPKemp@missi.ncsc.mil> Tue, 27 April 2010 12:51 UTC

Return-Path: <DPKemp@missi.ncsc.mil>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB3EF3A69B3; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.556, BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OLDqu2w067Tj; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stingray.missi.ncsc.mil (stingray.missi.ncsc.mil [144.51.50.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E44803A69AD; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:50:56 -0700 (PDT)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:50:23 -0400
Message-ID: <201004271250.o3RCoOYg029954@stingray.missi.ncsc.mil>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.1004270623230.14455-100000@citation2.av8.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [TLS] Last Call: draft-hoffman-tls-additional-random-ext (Additional Random
Thread-Index: Acrl8/jFkiDlGQ3jT9+3taaIsYVHpAAEtodA
References: <201004262053.o3QKriRD024875@stingray.missi.ncsc.mil> <Pine.LNX.4.44.1004270623230.14455-100000@citation2.av8.net>
From: "Kemp, David P." <DPKemp@missi.ncsc.mil>
To: Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Apr 2010 12:51:33.0734 (UTC) FILETIME=[5D903860:01CAE608]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-hoffman-tls-additional-random-ext (Additional Random
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:51:01 -0000

I'm not sure why an entropy pool would not be considered "truly random"
by any of the three criteria you cited.  If there is insufficient
physically-generated entropy (such as on an appliance with no hard
drives, no user timing input, and all other sources observable or
predictable) then the process is not applicable - it cannot create
entropy by magic.

But by what criteria would it fail to be truly random (albeit at a much
lower rate than dedicated hardware) on an uncompromised user desktop?

Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Anderson [mailto:dean@av8.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:25 AM
To: Kemp, David P.
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-hoffman-tls-additional-random-ext
(Additional Random

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator

The link you cite above is an example of the extra hardware that most
people don't have.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//dev/random

The link you cite above isn't a truly random number generator.

		--Dean


-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 256 5494

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status