Eric Murray wrote: > > Since PRNGs cycle, with enough output you could tell if a given > chip is using a PRNG[1]. > > 1. assuming that the RNG produces output fast enough since good PRNGs > have long cycles. You wouldn't have to store all the output, just > the beginning X bytes to detect the start of the next cycle. > A 64 bit LFSR using a primitive polynomial and producing bits at 400 MHz would still take >1400 years to make one lap...registers are cheap and small, forget about storing and testing against "just the beginning X bytes". Unless of course the designer >intends< it to turn laps quickly.
- Intel announcements at RSA '99 Steve Bellovin
- Re: Intel announcements at RSA '99 Ben Laurie
- Re: Intel announcements at RSA '99 David Honig
- Re: Intel announcements at RSA '99 David G. Koontz
- Re: Trojan Processors Markus Kuhn
- Re: Intel announcements at RSA '99 Eric Murray
- Re: Intel announcements at RSA '99 David R. Conrad
- Re: Intel announcements at RSA '99 Markus Kuhn
- Re: Intel announcements at RSA '99 David Honig
- Re: Intel announcements at RSA '99 Michael Motyka
- Re: Intel announcements at RSA '99 Dan Geer
- Re: Intel announcements at RSA '99 James A. Donald
- Re: Intel announcements at RSA '99 David Honig
- Re: Intel announcements at RSA '99 Alex Alten
- Re: Intel announcements at RSA '99 Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: Intel announcements at RSA '99 Ben Laurie
- Re: Intel announcements at RSA '99 Colin Plumb
- Re: Intel announcements at RSA '99 Eli Brandt
- Re: Intel announcements at RSA '99 Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: Intel announcements at RSA '99 Colin Plumb
