Jitterentropy tests

Emery Hemingway emery at ...261...
Fri Dec 11 17:53:11 CET 2015

I think everyone has questioned the quality of Jitterentropy (for safety's sake) so I
ported over the TestU01 suite, which from what I've read is notable for giving failing 
scores to most of the popular RNGs. Jitterentropy passes the shortest two of the four 
test batteries, but is two slow to practically test against the larger two tests.

Speed aside, I think it is looking like a good entropy source, but then again I wouldn't 
be shocked if OpenSSL runs a crappy amplifier over top of /dev/random.

I have the tests in my external repo:

Test output
http://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmePQrzxbDeXbjzq654hURU642QzJc3Eujh46gHvpUkBvL jitterentropy_alphabet.log
http://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmZrRdnBbSByJxLxy4m2ihktKwebp5NhG9ZoSPYhwWZg4D jitterentropy_rabbit.log

TestU01 documentation


On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:59:27AM +0900, Jaemin Park wrote:
> I'll also consider your comments on "random", but currently I'm
> implementing the test program only. (It's fine till now.)
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Josef Söntgen <
> >
> > Note that there is currently no random source besides an older version
> > of the jitterentropy RNG [2] available on Genode. So, for all use cases
> > that go beyond mere experimentation, the generated keys should be
> > considered as insecure if you only use this as source.
> >
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.genode.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20151211/4e70052b/attachment.sig>

More information about the users mailing list