[33130] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Noise sources: multi-oscillator vs. semiconductor noise?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ericm@lne.com)
Sat Jul 29 19:54:53 2006
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 13:40:23 -0700
From: ericm@lne.com
To: Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@rek.tjls.com>
Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <20060729202412.GA29407@panix.com>
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 04:24:12PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> I cannot find any public, rigorous discussion of why such a design might
> be preferable to the semiconductor noise type of design -- but I have to
> assume the people designing the commercial sources have all converged on
> similar designs for _some_ reason.
All the commercial RNGs are part of chips ("cores"), rather than
circuits made from discrete parts. From what the hardware people I
have worked with have told me, the free-running oscilator design is
easier to get through chip-design software that generally considers
analog circuits to be errors. It's also easier to simulate.
Eric
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
