From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 11:41:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 11:40:50 -0400 Received: from h131s117a129n47.user.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.117.131]:13727 "HELO pcard0ks.ca.nortel.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 11:40:40 -0400 Message-ID: <3B812FD2.836572F5@nortelnetworks.com> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 11:42:10 -0400 From: Chris Friesen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.3-custom i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug McNaught Cc: linux-kernel Subject: Re: /dev/random in 2.4.6 In-Reply-To: <2251207905.998322034@[10.132.112.53]> <3B8124C4.7A4275B9@nortelnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Doug McNaught wrote: > > Chris Friesen writes: > > > Why don't we also switch to a cryptographically secure algorithm for > > /dev/urandom? > > It IS cryptographically secure. Have you ever read the manpage? Oops, my bad. I got errors doing man on urandom, but neglected to try a man on random. The main reason for my comment was the suggestion by Steve Hill that /dev/urandom was NOT cryptographically secure. Re-reading it, his comment was in the context of generating cryptographic keys, so perhaps I misunderstood what he meant. Chris -- Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10 Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557 3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986 Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email: cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com