On 02.10.2012, at 15:22, Jakob Bohm wrote: > On 10/2/2012 2:04 PM, Stefan H. Holek wrote: >> When using the openssl command line utility, is a private RANDFILE per CA >> required for security reasons, or is it just fine to use a single RANDFILE >> for everything (i.e. the default ~/.rnd)? Older configuration files seem to >> indicate the former, but is this still true? >> >> IOW, I am looking for an answer to whether not having its own RANDFILE >> degrades the security of a CA. > > I would say it degrades it, as it makes the randomness used by each CA less > random. > > I would also suggest getting a real hardware RNG source and directly or > indirectly feeding it into OpenSSL.
Thank you for the answer. I am after something more specific though: The openssl req, ca, etc. commands always load the RANDFILE, even if an acceptable source for seeding the PRNG exists. This means that RANDFILE is mixed into an already good seed [1]. Given that RANDFILE contains good data as well, I would assume this has exactly zero effect on the "quality" of the seed. I lack the maths degree to be certain about this though. Thanks again, Stefan [1] http://www.openssl.org/docs/crypto/RAND_add.html -- Stefan H. Holek ste...@epy.co.at ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
