In article <v04011700b3c0b0807cfc@[24.218.56.100]>, Arnold G. Reinhold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One nice advantage of using RC4 as a nonce generator is that you can easily > switch back and forth between key setup and code byte generation. You can > even do both at the same time. (There is no need to reset the index > variables.) This allows you to intersperse entropy deposits and withdrawals > at will. Oh dear! This suggestion worries me. Is it reasonable to expect this arrangement to be secure against e.g. chosen-entropy attacks?
- Re: depleting the random number generator David Honig
- Re: depleting the random number generator Ben Laurie
- Re: depleting the random number generator Bill Stewart
- Re: depleting the random number generator Ben Laurie
- RE: depleting the random number generator Enzo Michelangeli
- RE: depleting the random number generator bram
- Re: depleting the random number generator Ben Laurie
- Re: depleting the random number generator bram
- Re: depleting the random number generator James A. Donald
- Re: depleting the random number genera... Arnold G. Reinhold
- Re: depleting the random number g... David Wagner
- Re: depleting the random numb... James A. Donald
- Re: depleting the random numb... bram
- Re: depleting the random numb... James A. Donald
- Re: depleting the random numb... John Kelsey
- Summary re: /dev/random Sandy Harris
- Proposal (was Summary re: /de... Sandy Harris
- Re: Proposal (was Summary re:... bram
- Re: Proposal (was Summary re:... Greg Rose
- Re: Proposal (was Summary re:... Damien Miller
- Re: Proposal (was Summary re:... John Gilmore