Jakob,
That's reasonable, although I wouldn't use the word "low" to describe it.
I did try to include 10.1.2 from NIST's SP 800-90C but it didn't make it.
There is nothing preventing the use of the existing DRBGs with longer
digests which Could increase number of bits.
Pauli
On 15/9/21 11:34 pm, Jakob Bohm via openssl-users wrote:
On 2021-09-14 12:14, Dr Paul Dale wrote:
> ...low security RNGs and other antifeatures.
Huh???? Where? Why plural?
The only **one** I'm aware of is the one I added to stochastically
flush the property cache where it doesn't need to be
cryptographically secure.
Some applications need more than 256 independent random bits to
satisfy their
security design. Some of the newer RNGs in OpenSSL presume otherwise
in their
government design.
Enjoy
Jakob
