Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> skrev: (8 april 2018 17:36:27 CEST) >On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 08:50:35PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 05:55:14PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote: >> > > Because >> > > - It is not clear we need to do so >> > >> > > That we need to do what? >> > >> > Do FIPS compliant random numbers in this release. >> >> We will never have that in any release by default, like I already >> stated a few times. >> >> > Everything is a trade-off. Please explain why you want AES256-CTR >with a nonce, and why AES128-CTR with personalization (and/or a DF) is >not sufficient. >> >> RAND_DRBG_set() takes 2 parameters: type and flags. >> >> Type can be: >> - NID_aes_128_ctr >> - NID_aes_192_ctr >> - NID_aes_256_ctr >> >> The only flag is RAND_DRBG_FLAG_CTR_NO_DF. When using a DF a nonce >> is required. When not using a DF the nonce is not used. >> >> We always use a personalization string. >> >> The requirements for not using a DF means that you need to use >> "full entropy", which is even more strict then when using a DF. >> Since we don't have a "full entropy" source, we can generate it >> ourself, but it would require the double amount of entropy, so 512 >> bit. We have no code currently to do this, but there is an open >> issue about it. > >This is actually wrong. When not using a DF, the seed length = 384 >for NID_aes_256_ctr. So we would need 768 bits of entropy if we >don't have access to full entropy.
Wait what? This sounds nuts... Can you refer to something that backs your claim? > > >Kurt > >_______________________________________________ >openssl-project mailing list >firstname.lastname@example.org >https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ openssl-project mailing list email@example.com https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project