Aaron Toponce writes: > Cryptographers don't like the idea that it's possible, even if it's > excessively remote, and highly unprobable. This is why you see suggestions > to use /dev/random for long term SSH, SSL and OpenPGP keys.
Cryptographers are certainly not responsible for this superstitious nonsense. Think about this for a moment: whoever wrote the /dev/random manual page seems to simultaneously believe that (1) we can't figure out how to deterministically expand one 256-bit /dev/random output into an endless stream of unpredictable keys (this is what we need from urandom), but (2) we _can_ figure out how to use a single key to safely encrypt many messages (this is what we need from SSL, PGP, etc.). For a cryptographer this doesn't even pass the laugh test. I'm not saying that /dev/urandom has a perfect API. It's disappointingly common for vendors to deploy devices where the randomness pool has never been initialized; BSD /dev/urandom catches this configuration bug by blocking, but Linux /dev/urandom (unlike Linux /dev/random) spews predictable data, causing (e.g.) the widespread RSA security failures documented on http://factorable.net. But fixing this configuration bug has nothing to do with the /dev/random superstitions. ---D. J. Bernstein Research Professor, Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list email@example.com http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography