[Info-vax] Roadmap

[gezelter at rlgsc.com]

On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 1:32:43 PM UTC-5, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2019-01-03, gezelter at rlgsc.com <gezelter at rlgsc.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 9:51:03 AM UTC-5, John Reagan wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 8:26:51 PM UTC-5, Richard Maher wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > And you added that new/optional parameter to math$random right?
> >> 
> >> I'm not falling for that again...  The last time I suggested such a thing, I got schooled in PRNGs.
> >> 
> >> Seriously, we've been talking about PRNGs, entropy pools, OpenSSL, etc.  Having access to the underlying x86 instructions (either as C builtins, new MATH$ entry points, enhanced MATH$ entry points, etc.) will be a part of that.
> >
> > John,
> >
> > My recommendation would be for an essentially "flat" port, with changes deferred to a later point.
> >
> 
> The problem with that is that while it can apply to much of VMS,
> security is an ever changing goal and VMS needs various things
> to be fixed as soon as possible.
> 
> I would also hope VSI isn't exclusively using the Intel hardware
> generator by default for security critical functionality.
> 
> Simon.
> 
> -- 
> Simon Clubley, clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
> Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

Simon,

Just to be clear: My reference to "flat" was not a long-term recommendation, but a short-term tactic for the initial boot/EAK.

Long-term, there is no shortage of things to be done. However, none of them should detract from the short-term goal of First Boot/EAK. 

- Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com