From: Jeffrey Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jaltman> Then I call RAND_status() which in turn calls RAND_poll(). jaltman> This second time the call takes over 60 seconds. This jaltman> appears to be caused by the walking of the heap. Between the jaltman> time the RAND_screen() is called and RAND_status() is called jaltman> a large amount of memory is allocated (most of it jaltman> uninitialized at this point.) Hmm, that's quite a bit... jaltman> Do you really want to search through 14MB of data each time jaltman> this routine is called? Well, that actually depends on what the real issue is. I mean, this is likely to happen only once in the life of a program. I understand that if it's a client program it might start quite often. However, security is an issue, and in a PRNG it can be crucial. And if we're talking about mostly uninitialised memory, it becomes even more important to take a really big chunk, or all you'll get for entropy is a line of zeroes with perhaps a few other bits quite dispersed. Well, perhaps not necessarely zeroes, but the risk of getting a fairly well-known or easily guessable pattern can be great at that time. So, there's a choice. The trade-off seems to be between speed and security in this case. I'm not sure what would be the exact right choice here, perhaps someone else does? -- Richard Levitte \ Spannv�gen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chairman@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 Redakteur@Stacken \ SWEDEN \ or +46-709-50 36 10 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ Software Engineer, Celo Communications: http://www.celocom.com/ Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400. See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a on Win32
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:34:16 -0700
- Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a on W... Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker
- Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a on Win32 Jeffrey Altman
- Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a on W... Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker
- Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a on Win32 Jeffrey Altman
- Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a on W... Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker
- Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a ... Dr S N Henson
- Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a on W... Ulf Moeller
- Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a on Win32 rsalz
- Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a on W... Geoff Thorpe
- Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a on Win32 Jeffrey Altman
- Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a on W... Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker
- Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a ... Lutz Jaenicke
- Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a on Win32 Jeffrey Altman
- Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a on W... Lutz Jaenicke
- Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a on W... Ulf Moeller
- Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a on Win32 Jeffrey Altman
- Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a on Win32 Jeffrey Altman
- Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a on Win32 Jeffrey Altman
- Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a on Win32 Peter Gutmann
- Re: 0.9.6 incompatible with 0.9.5a on Win32 Jeffrey Altman
