Re: [PROPOSAL/PATCH] Fortuna PRNG in /dev/random

Jean-Luc Cooke
2004-09-25T14:55:58Z

On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 09:42:30PM -0000, linux@horizon.com wrote:
> > What if I told the SHA-1 implementation in random.c right now is weaker
> > than those hashs in terms of collisions? The lack of padding in the
> > implementation is the cause. HASH("a\0\0\0\0...") == HASH("a") There
> > are billions of other examples.
>
> EXCUSE me?

...

> I could argue it's a design flaw to *include* the padding.

I was trying to point out a flaw in Ted's logic. He said "we've recently
discoverd these hashs are weak because we found collsions. Current
/dev/random doesn't care about this."

I certainly wasn't saying padding was a requirment. But I was trying to
point out that the SHA-1 implementaion crrently in /dev/random by design is
collision vulnerable. Collision resistance isn't a requirment for it's
purposes obviously.

Guess my pointing this out is a lost cause.

JLC