I don't see any reason why not. We just need to come up with a good
naming convention, and then we can add that into the Standard Algorithms
document.
The existing names were established years ago, based on functional
implementations rather than a specific algorithmic basis.
Brad
On 1/9/2013 7:31 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
At 09:45 AM 1/9/2013, Sean Mullan wrote:
think it is unlikely that 2 providers would implement the same SecureRandom
algorithm, since the names are not standardized like other cryptographic
algorithms such as SHA-256, RSA, etc.
Can this be fixed? There really should be a flavor for this.
E.g.
SP800-90a/SHA256/HASH
SP800-90A/SHA256/HMAC
SP800-90A/AES/CTR
NRBG/NoisyDiode[/implementation id]
NRBG/RingOscillator[/Implementation id]
There are about 6 classes of NIST "approved" deterministic random number
generators. See http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips140-2/fips1402annexc.pdf.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that multiple providers implement the same
RNGs, but don't have a common name for them. In fact, according to wikipedia,
the underlying function for MSCAPI is the FIPS186-2 appendix 3.1 with SHA1
function.
Mike
