[6562] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
RE: [PGP]: PGP 6.5.2 Random Number Generator (RNG) support
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lucky Green)
Thu Feb 3 09:34:29 2000
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 18:33:56 -0800
From: Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to>
In-reply-to: <20000202210018.15433.qmail@nym.alias.net>
To: cryptography@c2.net
Message-id: <NDBBIFGOKODBCKDGJDKLOELIDDAA.shamrock@cypherpunks.to>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Anon wrote:
> As for the concerns about back doors, the best reference on
> the design of the RNG remains cryptography.com's analysis at
> http://www.cryptography.com/intelRNG.pdf. Paul Kocher and his team
> concluded that the chip was well designed and that the random numbers were
> of good quality.
Your post is the third or forth post I have seen in the last year that
claims that Paul concluded that Intel's RNG outputs strong random numbers.
Paul and Ben did not draw any conclusions about the quality of the random
numbers generated Intel's RNG as fielded. Nor could they have drawn such
conclusions, since neither was given an opportunity to analyze known (to
them) unwhitened output of the RNG. Which the carefully mention in their
paper. You may wish to read Section 4 of the document you cited more
carefully.
--Lucky
