From: jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 15:46:14 +0000, Owen Rees wrote:
> Jethro_uk wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 12:45:20 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>
>>> On 2025-08-24, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 11:58:23 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
>>>>> On 23/08/2025 12:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 11:02:39 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>> Nowadays, processors contain hardware to generate truly random
>>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But do they ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Answer came there none.
>>>>
>>>> Huh ?
>>>>
>>>>> Surely there would have to be specialist hardware to do this.
>>>>
>>>> Not following. Sorry.
>>>
>>> I think Max has misunderstood your question. You were suggesting that
>>> the feature might be nobbled by spooks, he seems to think it might not
>>> exist at all and just be a complete lie and be psuedorandom numbers.
>>
>> I wasn't suggesting any nobbling by anyone. I was merely noting that I
>> had no good reason to believe what *other people* tell me about
>> something as abstruse and complex as the science of random numbers.
>>
>> Especially if I am being asked to rely on it.
>>
>>> Your question is sensible, albeit hardly original. His question is
>>> ridiculous. Yes, the processors do contain specialist hardware to
>>> generate the truly random numbers. No, it is not all a lie. Is it
>>> nobbled by the NSA? It's impossible to say.
>>
>> I'll ask again - but not because I wear a tinfoil hat.
>>
>> How do we *know* these numbers are random ?
>
> You would need to establish that all the components of the system you
> are using are resistant to a supply chain attack. That is not a
> realistic option for those with less than the resources of the security
> service of an advanced nation state.
Which was what I was saying (what seems like) years ago.
By all means use encryption. But don't be surprised it it isn't as secure
as you thought.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
