My Random number library.
These routines can be used to generate pseudo random numbers and can be
used to 'seed' the pseudo random number generator (RNG). The RNG make no
effort to reproduce the same random number stream with each execution.
Various other routines in the SSLeay library 'seed' the RNG when suitable
'random' input data is available. Read the section at the end for
details
on the design of the RNG.
void RAND_bytes(
unsigned char *buf,
int num);
This routine puts 'num' random bytes into 'buf'. One should make
sure RAND_seed() has been called before using this routine.
void RAND_seed(
unsigned char *buf,
int num);
This routine adds more 'seed' data the RNG state. 'num' bytes
are added to the RNG state, they are taken from 'buf'. This
routine can be called with sensitive data such as user entered
passwords. This sensitive data is in no way recoverable from
the RAND library routines or state. Try to pass as much data
from 'random' sources as possible into the RNG via this function.
Also strongly consider using the RAND_load_file() and
RAND_write_file() routines.
void RAND_cleanup();
When a program has finished with the RAND library, if it so
desires, it can 'zero' all RNG state.
The following 3 routines are convenience routines that can be used to
'save' and 'restore' data from/to the RNG and it's state.
Since the more 'random' data that is feed as seed data the better, why
not
keep it around between executions of the program? Of course the
application should pass more 'random' data in via RAND_seed() and
make sure no-one can read the 'random' data file.
char *RAND_file_name(
char *buf,
int size);
This routine returns a 'default' name for the location of a 'rand'
file. The 'rand' file should keep a sequence of random bytes used
to initialise the RNG. The filename is put in 'buf'. Buf is
'size'
bytes long. Buf is returned if things go well, if they do not,
NULL is returned. The 'rand' file name is generated in the
following way. First, if there is a 'RANDFILE' environment
variable, it is returned. Second, if there is a 'HOME' environment
variable, $HOME/.rand is returned. Third, NULL is returned. NULL
is also returned if a buf would overflow.
int RAND_load_file(
char *file,
int number);
This function 'adds' the 'file' into the RNG state. It does this
by
doing a RAND_seed() on the value returned from a stat() system call
on the file and if 'number' is non-zero, upto 'number' bytes read
from the file. The number of bytes passed to RAND_seed() is
returned.
int RAND_write_file(
char *file,
int num);
RAND_write_file() writes 'num' random bytes to the file 'file'.
This is a suitable method of saving RNG state for reloading via
RAND_load_file().
What follows is a description of this RNG and a description of the
rational
behind it's design.
It should be noted that this RNG is intended to be used to generate
'random' keys for various ciphers including generation of DH and RSA
keys.
It should also be noted that I have just created a system that I am happy
with.
It may be overkill but that does not worry me. I have not spent that
much
time on this algorithm so if there are glaring errors, please let me
know.
Speed has not been a consideration in the design of these routines.
First up I will state the things I believe I need for a good RNG.
1) A good hashing algorithm to mix things up and to convert the RNG
'state'
to random numbers.
2) An initial source of random 'state'.
3) The state should be very large. If the RNG is being used to generate
4096 bit RSA keys, 2 2048 bit random strings are required (at a
minimum).
If your RNG state only has 128 bits, you are obviously limiting the
search space to 128 bits, not 2048. I'm probably getting a little
carried away on this last point but it does indicate that it may not
be
a bad idea to keep quite a lot of RNG state. It should be easier to
break a cipher than guess the RNG seed data.
4) Any RNG seed data should influence all subsequent random numbers
generated. This implies that any random seed data entered will have
an influence on all subsequent random numbers generated.
5) When using data to seed the RNG state, the data used should not be
extractable from the RNG state. I believe this should be a
requirement because one possible source of 'secret' semi random
data would be a private key or a password. This data must
not be disclosed by either subsequent random numbers or a
'core' dump left by a program crash.
6) Given the same initial 'state', 2 systems should deviate in their RNG
state
(and hence the random numbers generated) over time if at all possible.
7) Given the random number output stream, it should not be possible to
determine
the RNG state or the next random number.
The algorithm is as follows.
There is global state made up of a 1023 byte buffer (the 'state'), a
working message digest ('md') and a counter ('count').
Whenever seed data is added, it is inserted into the 'state' as
follows.
The input is chopped up into units of 16 bytes (or less for
the last block). Each of these blocks is run through the MD5
message digest. The data passed to the MD5 digest is the
current 'md', the same number of bytes from the 'state'
(the location determined by in incremented looping index) as
the current 'block' and the new key data 'block'. The result
of this is kept in 'md' and also xored into the 'state' at the
same locations that were used as input into the MD5.
I believe this system addresses points 1 (MD5), 3 (the 'state'),
4 (via the 'md'), 5 (by the use of MD5 and xor).
When bytes are extracted from the RNG, the following process is used.
For each group of 8 bytes (or less), we do the following,
Input into MD5, the top 8 bytes from 'md', the byte that are
to be overwritten by the random bytes and bytes from the
'state' (incrementing looping index). From this digest output
(which is kept in 'md'), the top (upto) 8 bytes are
returned to the caller and the bottom (upto) 8 bytes are xored
into the 'state'.
Finally, after we have finished 'generation' random bytes for the
called, 'count' (which is incremented) and 'md' are fed into MD5
and
the results are kept in 'md'.
I believe the above addressed points 1 (use of MD5), 6 (by
hashing into the 'state' the 'old' data from the caller that
is about to be overwritten) and 7 (by not using the 8 bytes
given to the caller to update the 'state', but they are used
to update 'md').
So of the points raised, only 2 is not addressed, but sources of
random data will always be a problem.