netdev - Re: [PATCH] random: seed random_int_secret at least poorly at core

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]

Date:	Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:45:10 -0500
From:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	shemminger@...workplumber.org, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] random: seed random_int_secret at least poorly at
 core_initcall time

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:33:04AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
 
 > Ingo wanted even more
 > unpredictability, in the face of total failure from these more dynamic
 > sources, so x86 also "seeds" itself with the build string and the
 > boot_params. These last two are hardly high entropy, but they should
 > at least make 2 different systems not have _identical_ entropy at the
 > start. It's far from cryptographically secure, but it's something, I
 > hope.

Those are both likely to be the same on some configurations.
On x86, we could maybe hash the dmi tables ? Vendor stupidity aside,
things like serial numbers in those tables _should_ be different.
 
	Dave

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html