[117680] in Cypherpunks
better mousetrotp
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anonymous)
Wed Sep 8 21:05:23 1999
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 02:43:03 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <199909090043.CAA17009@mail.replay.com>
From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
To: cypherpunks@algebra.com
Reply-To: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
Anonymous #1, #2 are both on crack. It doesn't matter where (hardwired
logic, firmware, software) you do the conditioning. What matters is that
the user can monitor the bits *before whitening* so as to ascertain their
true unpredictability.
before cooking them up.
('Cause after whitening, there is no possibility of such
measurement.)
At 12:03 AM 9/9/99 +0200, Anonymous wrote:
> >> My point was that it's bad engineering practice for Intel to
> >> design a hardware RNG that requires an OS-specific API.
>
> > But Intel didn't design a hardware RNG that requires an
> > OS-specific API. They could make a Linux API without any problem.
>
>But that *is* an OS-specific API -- simply a different OS.
>The entire argument of one OS vs. another is a red herring,
>and entirely irrelevant to my argument. I argue that Intel
>should have placed the RNG whitening in microcode instead of
>into and OS driver, thus avoiding the entire OS issue altogether.
>
> > Once again we have an ideologically based objection which ignores
> > the reality of engineering constraints in the real world.
>
>Rubbish. I'm claiming that good engineering practice suggests
>that an OS driver is the wrong place for RNG whitening code.
>
>
