Re: ssh, /dev/urandom

[tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@kemisten.nu> writes:

>    I agree that we should not have a fictitious /dev/urandom, but we
>    should support ssh even so.
> 
> Open SSH is supported, in an insecure way, by either a random
> translator, or the copying hack.

Ssh should provide a non-cryptographically secure mode (such as using
hashes of the low time bits, for example) for use on systems without a
real random bit source.

If it does not use that, it is reasonable for us to use a hack to
provide something similar.