On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Thor Lancelot Simon <t...@panix.com> wrote:
> Eventually I will replace it with a multi-pool implementation like > Fortuna. However, I'm trying to make incremental improvements while > waiting for that mythical great extent of free time to appear. Why do you want to do that? For Linux, rewrites based on Yarrow or Fortuna have been proposed several times and always firmly rejected by the maintainers, I'd say for good reason. Here's one example: http://lwn.net/Articles/103653/ Search on mailing list archives will turn up extensive discussion, > One thing that's always bothered me has been the use of an odd > "folded" SHA1 construct to generate output bits. What is done is > this: Many of the newer hashes, including some SHA-3 candidates, use a "wide trail" strategy in which the internal state is larger than the hash output size. They include an output-compression function that reduces the state to the desired size. Why not use one of those instead of simple folding? That gives you a well-analysed technique. e.g. use Skein-1024-512 with 1024 state and 512 output. Then split the output into say 128 for actual output and 384 for feedback. _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
