Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

A XOR B can be replicated in multiple instructions as ((NOT A) AND B) or (A and (NOT B)). This could be used to validate the result of XOR with some confidence that a targeted backdoor would be increasingly difficult to implement over multiple instructions.


0

See the paper referred to in Bruce Schneier's blog at https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/the_security_of_7.html, which advocates selecting a fresh permutation of the pools for every N inputs, where N is the number of pools. If the adversary doesn't know the permutation, it makes it harder for him to direct the inputs he doesn't control to pools ...


2

If nothing else, it makes the output of the pool irrecoverable. One of Fortuna's goals is to make prior Fortuna outputs safe from a compromise (the discovery of all of Fortuna's current data by an adversary). If the pool continued on without a reset, with little or no entropy added before the compromise took place, the adversary could more easily calculate ...


2

From what I see from the pseudocode, it would appear that $OPF(n)/stepsize−n \in \{0,1\}$, that is, an attacker can compute $OPF(n)/stepsize$, and rederive $n$ with a maximum error of 1. It would appear that the function fails in its goal of "the adversary must not be able to guess the location of the points"


4

As stated in the comments, dev/random already produces cryptographically secure random bytes which are perfectly adequate for use in encryption keys. Running these bytes through another CSPRNG is completely redundant. As far as I've understood, one of the options to create cryptographically secure keys would be to gather entropy from /dev/urandom/ and ...


2

As noted by izaera, that reset of the pool is explicitly specified in Fortuna, and not an implementation artifact. The pools in Fortuna are SHA-256 hashes. By definition, in order to obtain a pool's result, the SHA-256 hash must be obtained (in the present code, that's the job of sha256_done). With a standard SHA-256 implementation, there is no way to ...


0

First up: Don't believe the hype! Especially if things can easily be proven wrong. What I mean is that your NIST have just launched a new service… is incorrect, as the NIST Randomness Beacon project is known to me (and others) since 2011. Furthermore, this project was awarded a multi-year grant from NIST's Innovations in Measurement Science (IMS) Program in ...


2

I wonder why anyone would choose to rely on a source of true random numbers fraught with questions that will ultimately have no provable - or perhaps even satisfactory - answer. There are at least a couple of companies that sell generators that provide high quality true random numbers. Having a generator on-site and available real-time allows the necessary ...


4

The variable of a polynomial is traditionally noted $x$, not $X$; and, when dealing with LFSRs, the polynomial is seldom considered a function. Thus I'll rewrite the polynomial as $P(x)=x^4+x^3+1$, a polynomial of degree $n=4$. This is a polynomial with coefficients in the field $\operatorname{GF}(2)$, also noted $\mathbb Z_2$ or $(\{0,1\},+,\cdot)$ [note: ...


7

I would characterize the service as similar to a trusted time-stamping service. Except they do not do the time-stamping, but just provide the "key". This allows a user to decide what do to with it, such as using it as a private key to sign something, or an HMAC key, proving the signature is "not older" than the timestamp. If the signature is published to a ...


2

The rationale for no longer mandating these tests include: These tests are generally not useful against most FIPS 140-2 approved random number generators. These tests can be useful against some kind of entropy sources. These tests give frequent false positives every few thousandth block of truely random stream will fail the test. Some entropy sources are ...


4

Q1: Why are these tests stroked out? These tests are stroked out on pages 57-58 of the current FIPS 140-2 because they are no longer part of the current FIPS 140-2 standard, since Change Notice 2 of 2002 December third, where these pages belong. My guess for the rationale of removing these tests is that It was realized that the very principle ...



Top 50 recent answers are included