Yo Hal! On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 23:19:32 -0800 Hal Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] said: > > rand() and RAND_pseudo_rand() are not random, just psuedo random, > > thus not for NTP. > > Do you think fuzzing needs cryptographically strong randomness? You are asking the wrong guy. I'm not sure we need any fuzzing. > I timed RAND_pseudo_bytes() rather than RAND_bytes() because I didn't > want to get mixed up with not enough randomness and it seemed good > enough for what we needed. You can't run out of randomness with RAND_bytes(). And as your later tests showed, they had different performance. > > What about the OpenSSL RAND_bytes()? > > It's slightly faster than RAND_pseudo_bytes() :) ?? Dunno, the point is that it is actually random. > The man page says both will return 1 if the bytes generated are > cryptographically strong. I wasn't able to use up the system > entropy. Seems suspicious. Modern Linux will no run out of entropy, except on startup. RGDS GARY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703 [email protected] Tel:+1 541 382 8588 Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas? "If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it." - Lord Kelvin
pgpc8vxzs0yPY.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
