> > So, I am not totally sure about the question of whether secure > > RNGs should be a MUST. I wonder what others think. > > Given this list exists, I'd say yes: going forward, they MUST be. <g> > > Regarding your counterargument: I think security considerations > warrant MUST. > > I think secure RNGs really need to be considered a vital component to > analyse. They have clearly been considered a vital component to > attack: and no wonder. Insecure RNGs introduce major unexpected > problems, including predictable keys and key leakage, in protocols > which rely on secure RNGs to satisfy their security requirements. But > they can be subtle, and hard to verify. > ...snip...
I know that this is not the right term as it has a pre-existing definition, but might you be arguing that a trustworthy RNG is a, if not the, "trust anchor" for security as we now understand it? That is to say "the authoritative entity for which trust is assumed and not derived"? [quotation from various Wiki def'ns] --dan _______________________________________________ dsfjdssdfsd mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dsfjdssdfsd
