linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] Entropy generator with 100 kB/s throughput

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130209180629.GD8091@thunk.org>
Date:	Sat, 9 Feb 2013 13:06:29 -0500
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>
Cc:	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Entropy generator with 100 kB/s throughput

On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 11:04:54PM +0100, Stephan Mueller wrote:
> * an array of statistical test suites pass the output of the entropy
> collector
>   (again, the output is not mangled with cryptography)

You're not mangling the output with cryptography, but you are doing
some mangling in jitterentropy_cpu_jitter().

So let's be clear about what the heart of your entropy source is:

You're getting the nanoseconds out of clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME),
and then mixing it using XOR and a ROL(3) into a 64-bit buffer, and
interspersing the calls to clock_gettime() with schedule().

So what a code breaker at the NSA would probably try to do first is to
measure is whether there is any kind of bias or non-entropy in the
nanoseconds returned by CLOCK_REALTIME after calls to schedule().  If
they can find any kind of bias, they can use that to calculate what
kind of patterns or non-random bits might end up showing up after you
do your non-cryptographic mangling.

For that reasons, what I would suggest doing first is generate a
series of outputs of jitterentropy_get_nstime() followed by
schedule().  Look and see if there is any pattern.  That's the problem
with the FIPS 140-2 tests.  Passing those tests are necessary, but
*NOT* sufficient to prove that you have a good cryptographic
generator.  Even the tiniest amount of post-processing, even if they
aren't cryptographic, can result in an utterly predictable series of
numbers to pass the FIPS 140-2 tests.

Regards,

						- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/