On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 03:20:24PM -0700, John Denker wrote: > On 10/24/2008 01:12 PM, Jack Lloyd wrote: > > > .... is a very different statement from saying that > > lacking such an attacker, you can safely assume your 'pools of > > entropy' (to quote the original question) are independent in the > > information-theoretic sense. > > The question, according to the original poster, is not > whether it is "safe" to assume that one of the entropy > sources can be trusted. Safe or not, the question explicitly > assumed that one of the sources was trusted ... and asked > what the consequences of that assumption would be.
Perhaps our seeming disagreement is due to a differing interpretation of 'trusted'. I took it to mean that at least one pool had a min-entropy above some security bound. You appear to have taken it to mean that it will be uniform random? -Jack --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]