Without a /dev/random device your not cryptographically
secure. If you fudge it and allow a connection anyway
you are essentially lying to the users - they think it's
secure but it really isn't.
Ted
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> [E
I've also tested a version with the following change:
...
//
// Encrypt test data.
//
for (int i = 0; i < ; i++) {
...
}
//
// Free RSA key.
//
...
This causes the application to continually grow in memory size. So, the memory
definite
There is a good chance that I am doing something wrong. However, the program
below produces the following output from valgrind with OpenSSL v0.9.8g:
==12647== 1,032 bytes in 43 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 2 of 2
==12647==at 0x4421846: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:149)
==12647==
Original message
>Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:42:36 -0800
>From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The easiest way is to have the user install a random
> device. There's ones out there
> for Solaris all the way back to version 2.5.1
>
> However, keep in mind that al
