Matt Mackall wrote: >On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 01:08:47AM +0000, David Wagner wrote: >> http://eprint.iacr.org/2005/029 > >Unfortunately, this paper's analysis of /dev/random is so shallow that >they don't even know what hash it's using. Almost all of section 5.3 >is wrong (and was when I read it initially).
Yes, that is a minor glitch, but I believe all their points remain valid nonetheless. My advice is to apply the appropriate s/MD5/SHA1/g substitution, and re-read the paper to see what you can get out of it. The problem is not that the paper is shallow; it is not. The source of the error is likely that this paper was written by theorists, not implementors. There are important things we can learn from them, and I think it is worth reading their paper carefully to understand what they have to offer. I believe they raise substantial and deep questions in their Section 5.3. I don't see why you say Section 5.3 is all wrong. Can you elaborate? Can you explain one or two of the substantial errors you see? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
