[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [avr-libc-dev] rand(3) in avr-libc

From: Theodore A. Roth
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] rand(3) in avr-libc
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:45:27 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, E. Weddington wrote:

:) On 10 Sep 2002 at 17:57, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
:) > > 2. add a (small?) crypto
:) > > package to take advantage of the new PRNG.
:) >
:) > Hmm, that's probably nothing i could do.  There's some crypto code one
:) > could get, but that's all written with 32-bit integers (or more) in
:) > mind, and probably way too huge to port to an AVR (like openssl or
:) > so).
:) Nothing I could do either. I didn't mean to imply "rolling our own"
:) crypto package (ref Ted's msg). I was thinking more of porting one
:) already in use. And perhaps it wouldn't have to be "top-of-the-line".
:) However.... If there is nobody capable / willing to do that and the
:) only real use for the larger PRNG code *would* be for a crypto
:) package, then I don't see a particular advantage for adding the
:) larger PRNG code. ....Though I would argue that the mega128 can hold
:) an awful lot of code... :-)

I think in this case, porting is nearly equivalent to rolling your own.
The problem as I see it is in making sure that the ported code is correct.
I'm not trying to completely veto this idea, just playing devils advocate.
People using crypto want it to work and it's just soooo easy for it to
"look" like it works and be flawed in some very subtle way.

Ted Roth

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]