Re: Anonymous on RNG's

James A. Donald (jamesd@echeque.com)
Sun, 24 Jan 1999 21:50:21 -0800

• Next message: Anonymous: "anon on rngs"
• Previous message: bram: "Re: Anonymous on RNG's"
• In reply to: James A. Donald: "Re: Anonymous on RNG's"

    --
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, James A. Donald wrote:
> > Since this is Intel, let us also consider the possibility
> > of bungling, rather than NSA pressure.
> >
> > Suppose our underlying truly random noise source
> > generates 75% zeros, and sometimes, at random, a one
> > bit.

At 09:37 PM 1/24/99 -0800, bram wrote:
> Then you take the actual level of entropy into account

 My point is that unless we understand what Intel is doing,
we do not know what the actual level of entropy is. We do
not necessarily get to see the unmassaged output from the
random noise source.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     c05SZ0VYfVHR74iKdRTVJryWBIwoXiVgPNkPAxy1
     4e1mWuIT5nuU6XUKQ/5sRNByWM6LvG/4COGFC718v

-----------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald

• Next message: Anonymous: "anon on rngs"
• Previous message: bram: "Re: Anonymous on RNG's"
• In reply to: James A. Donald: "Re: Anonymous on RNG's"