..on Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 03:38:56PM +0300, Maxim Kammerer wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Nathan of Guardian > <nat...@guardianproject.info> wrote: > > The best description is here: > > http://armoredbarista.blogspot.ch/2013/03/randomly-failed-weaknesses-in-java.html > > Unbelievable… It seems that PRNG implementers suffer from NIH > syndrome. If you are going to use /dev/urandom, then use it all the > time, and rely on code that's reviewed and maintained by thousands of > kernel people, not just your favorite buggy seeded PRNG du-jour.
Well said. A horribly broken attempt at reinventing the wheel. > So they're essentially constructing a state-based bit stream that > varies in each block, and hash it with SHA-1 — exposing each > intermediate hash value in the middle. Who the hell told them it's > safe from cryptanalysis POV? It's very weird indeed. This makes a good outline for a public request for a statement from them, IMO. Cheers, -- Julian Oliver PGP B6E9FD9A http://julianoliver.com http://criticalengineering.org -- Liberationtech is a public list whose archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
