Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 10:32:32 +0100 From: phk@phk.freebsd.dk To: David Schultz <dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU> Cc: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru>, Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>, Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org>, Kirk McKusick <mckusick@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/newfs mkfs.c src/sys/ufs/ffs ffs_alloc.c ffs_vfsops.c Message-ID: <8834.1045301552@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:38:07 PST." <20030215033807.GB3750@HAL9000.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20030215033807.GB3750@HAL9000.homeunix.com>, David Schultz writes: >The issue isn't how random the data ``feels'' according to ad hoc >tests; the issue is predictability. NFS relies upon generation >numbers being unguessable to prevent unauthenticated clients from >spoofing file handles. Even if random() is a pretty good PRNG, >arc4random() gives people peace of mind because it uses a real >cryptographic hash. If you could guess arc4random() values >without knowing the entropy pool, that would likely constitute an >attack on RC4 itself. The issue at hand, as far as I'm concerned is that the regression test was broken. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-src" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8834.1045301552>