$ cat /dev/urandom >/dev/null
kernel panic: radiation higher than the maximal safe amount
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013, Michael Shiloh wrote about "Re: SSD drives":
> > perhaps they use radioactive decay? Scroll down to "Geiger Counter" at:
>
> There
I don't know if Intel uses this but as I recall it VIA claims to use
certain quantum effects as sources of entropy:
http://www.via.com.tw/en/initiatives/padlock/hardware.jsp
2013/1/3 Nadav Har'El :
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013, Michael Shiloh wrote about "Re: SSD drives":
>> perhaps they use radioactive
On 01/03/2013 07:21 AM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013, Michael Shiloh wrote about "Re: SSD drives":
perhaps they use radioactive decay? Scroll down to "Geiger Counter" at:
There's an inherent conflict between the number of bits of randomness you
can get out of this process, and th
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013, Michael Shiloh wrote about "Re: SSD drives":
> perhaps they use radioactive decay? Scroll down to "Geiger Counter" at:
There's an inherent conflict between the number of bits of randomness you
can get out of this process, and the safety of the operator ;-)
--
Nadav Har'El
On 01/03/2013 05:25 AM, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
There is an additional
instruction, RDSEED, that is "supposedly" truly random, but, as I
mentioned, I have not seen an explanation of why it is or how it
works.
perhaps they use radioactive decay? Scroll down to "Geiger Counter" at:
http://www.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013, Yedidyah Bar-David wrote about "RNG (was: Re: SSD
> drives)":
>> RDRAND is also a PRNG, reseeded at most once every 1022 calls, way
>> faster than /dev/urandom (they state 500MiB per second), and you do not
>> have its so
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>
> I'd say that it is up to Intel to prove that their TRNG design is
> truly non-deterministic.
Um, but in Intel's case, they at least *tried* to prove that their TRNG is
good enough. I don't think WD tries to make its seek times very rand
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> The whole point of the hardware random number generator is that it is
> *not* a PRNG, but rather some special hardware which supposedly uses
> sources of randomness (e.g., heat) not normally available for software.
"Supposedly" is the operati
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Elazar Leibovich wrote:
> Instead of assuming, you should've used Google ;-)
Yes, but I am at work. ;-)
>
> To my (limited, I'm far from a crypto expert) understanding, Intel of course
> also seeds the PRNG with a true random number generator, and it complies
> N
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013, Elazar Leibovich wrote about "Re: RNG (was: Re: SSD
drives)":
> If you're a gateway that does SSL (and thus need to do many kex)? Like F5
This doesn't (I think) explain why you would need to do 100 million each
second.
--
Nadav Har'El| Thursday
If you're a gateway that does SSL (and thus need to do many kex)? Like F5
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013, Yedidyah Bar-David wrote about "RNG (was: Re: SSD
> drives)":
> > RDRAND is also a PRNG, reseeded at most once every 1022 calls, way
> > faster th
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013, Yedidyah Bar-David wrote about "RNG (was: Re: SSD
drives)":
> RDRAND is also a PRNG, reseeded at most once every 1022 calls, way
> faster than /dev/urandom (they state 500MiB per second), and you do not
> have its source code...
Can anyone give me an example of why on earth
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: SSD drives":
> 2) I would not only be worried about an NSA backdoor in Intel CPUs,
> but also about the degree of randomness of their generator. If it is
> flawed (and it is notoriously difficult to do a really good PRNG - I
> assume it is a PR
Instead of assuming, you should've used Google ;-)
To my (limited, I'm far from a crypto expert) understanding, Intel of
course also seeds the PRNG with a true random number generator, and it
complies NIST standard for randomness.
http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2012/11/17/the-difference-be
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 11:57:01AM +0200, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Baruch Siach wrote:
> > Hi Oleg,
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 10:40:31AM +0200, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> >> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 8:46 AM, shimi wrote:
> >> > I really don't think so. SSDs (IM
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Baruch Siach wrote:
> Hi Oleg,
>
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 10:40:31AM +0200, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 8:46 AM, shimi wrote:
>> > I really don't think so. SSDs (IMHO) makes computer much faster due to the
>> > VERY low seek time - the time
i'm new to docbook but want to try using it for all my teaching material.
i know i can edit straight xml (i'm very comfortable with this) but i
like the idea of a wysiwyg editor of some kind.
suggestions?
___
Linux-il mailing list
Linux-il@cs.huji.a
Hi Oleg,
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 10:40:31AM +0200, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 8:46 AM, shimi wrote:
> > I really don't think so. SSDs (IMHO) makes computer much faster due to the
> > VERY low seek time - the time it takes you to get a block. Compare 10-20ms
> > with ~0.1ms.
18 matches
Mail list logo
