News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A wall of lava lamps helps encrypt the internet by mbesto on Sunday December 31, 2017 @05:10PM (#16043293)
I think you're confusing the medium with which this achieved versus it's utility.

Surely you're not suggesting PRNG/DRBG isn't completely safe from hacking?

Re:A wall of lava lamps helps encrypt the internet by cmpxchg on Sunday December 31, 2017 @06:25PM (#16043609)
Real world RNGs get randomness from two sources: (1) the timings of random events on the machine (primarily network traffic), or (2) a hardware device that runs several oscillators on different clocks and detects coincidence in the derived square waves. Even #1 alone is normally sufficient in the real world. While you're right that there are attacks against RNGs, it's never going to be because an attacker gets control of every little bit of stray RF in your data center such that he can control the exact timing of packet arrival, packet retransmits, etc.
Re:A wall of lava lamps helps encrypt the internet by tptacek on Sunday December 31, 2017 @05:40PM (#16043425)
I don't even understand this question. Can you reword it?
Re:A wall of lava lamps helps encrypt the internet by mbesto on Sunday December 31, 2017 @09:46PM (#16044363)
Sure. I'm struggling to understand what utility your questioning. Is is it the fact that they are using a hardware based random generator or the way in which they are using a hardware generator (e.g. lava lamps)?

If the former - my question would be - surely you, as a security expert, would agree that a hardware random generator is more secure than a software based one (PseudoRandomNumberGenerator or DeterministicRandomBitGenerator)?

If the latter - why does the way in which they use a hardware generator matter as long as it provides some utility and advantage over a software-based one which has a deterministic set of numbers?