Everyone will not agree cause of this reseeding latency - not only at boot
- but guess this thread is complete now ;)
Le 18 juin 2016 21:59, "Bjorn Danielsson" <[email protected]>
a écrit :

> Better because more secure and less unnecessary blocking:
>
> On any normal Linux server, urandom is seeded from /dev/random at boot
> time, and from there on it works like any randomly seeded PRNG, except
> that it's better than SHA1PRNG since the Linux algorithm has been vetted
> by the cryptographic community, and it's also better since urandom can
> take advantage of any extra entropy that the kernel makes available as
> time passes.
>
> We all know that this is a JVM issue rather than anything to do with
> Tomcat or TomEE, but the unnecessary blocking due to suboptimal
> SecureRandom initialization tends to be a recurring question on all
> kinds of Java platform forums, since many years. And I think the
> /dev/./urandom thing is something that deserves to be put to sleep now.
>
> --
> Bjorn Danielsson
> Cuspy Code AB
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Does it mean it is better cause faster? For crypto concern I suspect you
> > will get both point of views cause of the reseeding difference so up to
> you.
> >
> > Fact are:
> > - ./jre/lib/security/java.security contains as default:
> > securerandom.source=file:/dev/random
> > - tomcat/tomee only rely on the JVM setup
> > - urandom is less secured than random on machines with a low entropy
> (check
> > the 2 paragraphs there
> >
> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/5469dc270cd44c451590d40c031e6a71c1f637e8/drivers/char/random.c#L109
> )
> > but likely close if the entropy is good enough. Means if it blocks it is
> > less secured. If you go down in the code you see urandom can reuse the
> same
> > seeding where random shouldn't (
> >
> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/5469dc270cd44c451590d40c031e6a71c1f637e8/drivers/char/random.c#L987
> > )
> >
> > Of course the "is it the case for me" of the last point is the one you
> have
> > to decide against to know if urandom is fine or not. Point 1 shows the
> JVM
> > choice ;).
> >
> > To make it even simpler: depends the OS, some just ln -s urandom on
> random
> > :)
> >
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> > <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Wordpress Blog
> > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
> > <http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory
> > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>
> >
> > 2016-06-18 19:01 GMT+02:00 Bjorn Danielsson <
> > [email protected]>:
> >
> >> For Java 8, I believe using file:/dev/urandom is better since it
> >> avoids SHA1PRNG and it avoids blocking even when seeding SecureRandom.
> >> It simply uses /dev/urandom for everything.
> >>
> >> Here is a good article explaining why /dev/urandom is the way to go:
> >>
> >> http://sockpuppet.org/blog/2014/02/25/safely-generate-random-numbers/
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bjorn Danielsson
> >> Cuspy Code AB
> >>
> >>
> >> Andy Gumbrecht <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > I've found that this can help:
> >> >
> >> > CATALINA_OPTS=-Djava.security.egd=file:/dev/./urandom
> >> >
> >> > Your path might be different, but you get the idea.
> >> >
> >> > Andy.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.tomitribe.com - @AndyGeeDe - On a small screen device.
> >> > On 17 Jun 2016 19:16, "paulhr" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Install of haveged fixed the issue.  It was even available on dnf.
> >> >>
> >> >> The other option was audio-entroyd.  But I found it to be poorly
> >> documented
> >> >> and hard to find an audio source to feed the randomness that is
> needed.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> *dnf install haveged.*
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> View this message in context:
> >> >>
> >>
> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Three-minutes-to-perform-one-step-during-startup-tp4678934p4678946.html
> >> >> Sent from the TomEE Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >> >>
> >>
>

Reply via email to