netdev - Re: [PATCH 01/12] netfilter: avoid get_random

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:	Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:58:23 +0100
From:	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] netfilter: avoid get_random_bytes calls

On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 01:43:40PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
[...]
> > > Hmm, some of them look like good candidates for net_get_random_once. I don't
> > > see such a problem with draining entropy pool, especially as they don't run
> > > that early and they don't request so many random bits.
> > 
> > I specifically did not use net_get_random_once once because checkentry is
> > not a hotpath.
> > 
> > I don't see why get_random_bytes use increases the security margin, especially
> > considering none of these hashes have periodic run-time rehashing?
> > 
> > But sure, if you think this change is a problem, Pablo can just revert it.
> 
> I don't know if it is a real problem. Most of the time the initial seed
> should be enough, but I guess get_random_bytes would still be a more
> defensive choice. I would have used it. ;)

OK, I have reverted this patch, thanks.
--
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