On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 02:14:19AM -0400, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
One small point that still bothers me:
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 01:22:18AM +0300, Michael Vasiliev wrote:
For the less security aware, there is the kernel support for hardware
generators on the motherboard in the current
I love the whole live-to-press nature of it all... you'd think the
researchers would have discussed it with Mackall themselves first.
On 5/10/06, Muli Ben-Yehuda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 02:14:19AM -0400, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
One small point that still bothers me:
On
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:17:24PM +0300, Ohad Lutzky wrote:
I love the whole live-to-press nature of it all... you'd think the
researchers would have discussed it with Mackall themselves first.
I introduced Zvika and Matt over email after Zvika asked me to. I
don't know if they actually
Nahum shalom,
thanks for the information.
However, next time, please consider sending us all the link instead the
PDF.
--
Orr Dunkelman,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If it wasn't for C, we'd be writing programs in BASI, PASAL, and OBOL, anon
Spammers: http://vipe.technion.ac.il/~orrd/spam.html
GPG
By the way, why would they have to _reverse engineer_ the kernel's
PRNG? Isn't it GPLd like the rest?
On 5/9/06, Tzafrir Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 10:44:54AM +0300, Orr Dunkelman wrote:
Nahum shalom,
thanks for the information.
However, next time, please
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:09:34AM +0300, Ohad Lutzky wrote:
By the way, why would they have to _reverse engineer_ the kernel's
PRNG? Isn't it GPLd like the rest?
Yeah, but apparently, they had trouble reading the code.
Cheers,
Muli
--
Muli Ben-Yehuda
http://www.mulix.org |
On Tuesday May 9 2006 11:12, Orr Dunkelman wrote:
According to what they claim, the source code was undocumented, and they
had to work hard to make it into a readable pseudo-code.
It reminds me a time I had to reverse engineer a circuit diagram I got.
Took me hours just to understand what the
