[148121] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: [Cryptography] SP800-90A B & C
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bear)
Mon Nov 11 18:30:27 2013
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
From: Bear <bear@sonic.net>
To: dj@deadhat.com
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:23:29 -0800
In-Reply-To: <9c679f1ee80094b09a8164d66be061c9.squirrel@www.deadhat.com>
Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Errors-To: cryptography-bounces+crypto.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@metzdowd.com
On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 21:18 +0000, dj@deadhat.com wrote:
> Part of my argument was that we can have both. The design must ensure that
> if designed to the spec without manipulation, it will offer secure random
> numbers.
But if we have no way of verifying that it is designed to the spec
without manipulation we have no way of verifying that any security
exists. I have a problem with that.
> The spec can allow that users can mix in their own sources to
> mitigate the issues that the former model raises.
And it must.
There absolutely must be a requirement for sources of entropy whose
nature and functioning are verifiable.
Bear
_______________________________________________
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
