Re: ssh, /dev/urandom

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

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

>    If our only alternatives are
> 
>    1) no ssh
>    2) ssh with no security
> 
>    you have advocated (2), right?  It is that statement which I am
>    arguing against.
> 
> No, I have advocated against including a unsecure random translator.
> You are forgetting the third alternative, making ssh use its own
> random pool.  Assuming that it is possible, if it is possible then
> this is the best solution.

I'm all for that, of course.