On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 09:52:12AM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote: > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-07-06 00:54:47) > > On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 11:22:44AM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-07-05 01:50:12) > > > > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 07:54:06AM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > > > > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-07-04 01:50:57) > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 11:09:54PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > > > > > > Quoting Marton Balint (2023-07-03 22:54:41) > > > > > > > > On Mon, 3 Jul 2023, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > > > > > > > My patch use av_get_random_seed() which uses what the underlying OS > > > > > > > > provides, BCrypt for Windows, /dev/urandom for Linux, arc4random() for > > > > > > > > BSD/Mac. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IOW it's a jungle of various paths, some of which are not guaranteed to > > > > > > > be cryptographically secure. I see no such guarantees for arc4random() > > > > > > > from a brief web search, and the fallback get_generic_seed() certainly > > > > > > > is not either. Granted it's only used on obscure architectures, but > > > > > > > still. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The doxy even says > > > > > > > > This function tries to provide a good seed at a best effort bases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You really think that these are significantly worse than > > > > > > > > OpenSSL/GCrypt, so it should not be allowed to fallback to? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should be using cryptographically secure PRNG for generating > > > > > > > encryption keys, or fail when they are not available. If you want to get > > > > > > > rid of the openssl dependency, IMO the best solution is a new > > > > > > > int av_random(uint8_t* buf, size_t len); > > > > > > > that guarantees either cryptographically secure randomness or an error. > > > > > > > > > > > > "guarantees cryptographically secure randomness" ? > > > > > > If one defined "cryptographically secure" as "not broken publically as of today" > > > > > > > > > > > > Iam saying that as i think "guarantees" can be misleading in what it means > > > > > > > > > > I feel your snark is very much misplaced. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I recall way more instances of broken crypto caused by overconfident > > > > > non-experts with an attitude like yours ("those silly crypto libraries, > > > > > broken all the time, how hard can it be really") than by actual > > > > > vulnerabilities in actual crypto libraries. > > > > > > > > > > In fact the highest-profile break I remember (Debian key entropy bug) > > > > > was caused precisely by non-experts fiddling with code they did not > > > > > understand. > > > > > > > > There is no snark here, at least that was not the intend > > > > Also what you say in these 2 paragraphs is true but isnt really > > > > related to what i said or meant to say > > > > > > > > these cryptographically secure PRNGS are secure as long as the > > > > currently used components and assumtations they are build on havnt > > > > been broken. > > > > Can i do better? no. but that doesnt mean that these > > > > are going to be unbroken in 30 years. > > > > just look 30 years in the past what percentage of what was believed to > > > > be secure 30 years ago has been broken today. or 50 or 100years > > > > thats really what i meant > > > > > > I still don't see what point are you trying to make here. > > > Yes, any practical cryptographic algorithm could potentially be broken > > > at some point. And everything in real life is imperfect, because we do > > > not live in the world of ideal forms. > > > > > But I don't see what practical steps could or should be taken in > > > response to this. > > > > for us i dont know but a user could > > instead of putting critical data in a system that might be broken in 30 years > > just write it down on paper and burn and grind the paper when its not needed anymore > > (which may or may not be an option) > > > > nothing is perfect but there are methods to transfer and destroy data which have a > > long track record of being secure and are simple. > > > > I think we should not make it sound like encrypting with these random numbers > > is as good as not storing/transmitting or using bits from fliping a real fair coin > > We are not claiming that. We are claiming that the random numbers > generated are (to the best of our ability, and that of the underlying > libraries we rely on) cryptographically secure. This means suitable for > use in state of the art cryptographic algorithms like AES. > I do not think it makes sense to mistrust CSPRNGs, yet still trust AES. The litteral wording was "that guarantees either cryptographically secure randomness or an error." that was what i refered to. the wording used now: "to the best of our ability, and that of the underlying libraries we rely on) cryptographically secure." is perfectly fine with me. I would have the same issue if someone said AES gurantees ... thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Its not that you shouldnt use gotos but rather that you should write readable code and code with gotos often but not always is less readable