On 05/07/2016 07:20 PM, Rick van Rein wrote:
> I do like the idea of harvesting CPU-internal data, but do not feel free
> of worries about this implementation style. There should be a more
> accurate model of its entropy before I'd trust it. But once it has
> this, the principle might expand to include much more probably switches,
> such as through multiple processes or threading.
[...]
> I'm curious if anyone has different opinions on this!
If there is no other sources, it is good to use haveged. I think that
haveged implementations depends on CPU and something like High
Precision Event Timer (HPET), but user would just use haveged with no
HPET system, or even on a VM.
While harvesting CPU-internal data is convenient, it would be
controversial. It would be easier for attackers to maliciously
control the key generation when it's not external source.
I use my own TRNG for my key generation.
Let's Make "NeuG USB Device" by STM32 Nucleo F103, together:
http://www.fsij.org/gnuk/neug-on-stm32-nucleo-f103.html
--
_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
