993:
the chip-health tester has it's own health tester if I'm not mistaken; and a reasonable analyst can sometimes find some good things about doing security at instruction level instead of code that can be compromised - so I see David's point. Now David, the fact is security community is in a pickle right now; even setting that aside, the holes RdRand filled with 90B compliance, regrettably or not, cause holes in 90B, AIS, and METAS alike to become more visible, and whack-a-mole is the official sport in this field of endeavor; and though Gnuish isn't perfectly clear he alludes to fact that risk profiles of integrated and discrete physical RNGs are overlapping but different, meaning that there are indeed some unique risks to integrated (even if there is a man-in-the-middle risk unique to discrete that counters his argument); In that sense RdRand is a substantial technical accomplishment but is not above criticism.
980:
secondary sources in support of any of those reasons in favor of inclusion; worse, lack of ability to thoroughly validate any RNG whatever is a documented criticism of all RNGs, not RdRand in particular. So if we do include "audit" we have a serious mess that we would need to talk about more - I suggest those in favor continued inclusion of "audit" remark start new head on this Talk page for that. No discussion, I vote delete, and readers can go to Ts'o's G+ site for more. Why do I think more discussion is needed to justify further inclusion of "audit" remark? I don't think
Knowledge (XXG) can publish every potshot without context. If included, the article might need to also note
846:
expected result and compare it to the instruction's result to detect the failure. There is no other instruction sequence that has even a miniscule chance of predicting the expected result of RdRand. Thus, RdRand can be subverted without making the processor internally inconsistent. There is no way for software to detect this subversion, unlike many other forms of possible processor subversion. This criticism IS valid, and it is particularly relevant because of the history of many cryptosystems failing due to poor random number generation and because of NSA's documented preference to attack random number generators to make cryptosystems fail.
393:
277:
246:
345:
369:
215:
455:
553:
1271:
543:
519:
1215:
quint64 hwRandom::getRandom() { quint64 randNum; // something to grab the value in rax // if (CF == 1) valid; if (CF == 0) invalid asm ( "tryAgain: \n" "rdrand %%rax \n" "jnc tryAgain \n"  :"=r"(randNum) /* output */ );
860:
As a practical matter, end users are UNABLE to establish trust in a hardware platform as complex and hard to reverse-engineer as a 2013 CPU chip. Even if Intel had the best of intentions, covert manipulation of automatically generated chip masks, performed by many possible attackers in addition to
992:
Gnuish, to address some other issues you raise above, AFAIK physical RNGs are all without exception in some sense black boxes; discrete units, not just processor-integrated units, are also subject to those and other criticisms; moreover RdRand is extremely competitive in terms of ability to test -
829:
This: "It is impossible for software to tell whether this instruction is actually returning random numbers or whether it has been deliberately subverted, either by Intel, by a malware microcode patch, or by a virtual machine operating system. " is not a valid criticism of RdRand. It is true of all
984:
that there is no adequate theory of how to validate in finite time that any RNG is truly random; that every physical entropy source has design obscurities by definition, and in practice, trade secrets; I'd expect topic of PRNG weakenesss would also arise in such a discussion. I can't cite the key
648:
In Ivy Bridge, the entropy source runs at 2.5Gbps. The conditioning ratio is 2:1, so the seeding data rate is 1.25 Gbps. Each seed is 256 bits. So the DRBG is reseeded at a maximum rate of 4.88 Million 256bit seeds per second. It will not reseed if there have been no RdRand instructions executed
875:
Intel's effort to produce reliably random numbers for use in software protocols is laudable, and the numbers produced are useful even if they are only somewhat random, not reliably random. The concept of reliable randomness for encryption protocols is sufficiently slippery and systemic that it
861:
NSA, cannot be ruled out. Also, because this is defined to be a platform instruction, there will be non-Intel chips that implement it. Even if Intel's are trustworthy, other implementations are not guaranteed to be, and therefore software cannot trust the randomness of the resulting numbers.
807:
This criticism is illogical and draws together unrelated facts to draw readers to an incorrect interpretation. It is stated that the Dual_EC_DRBG of SP800-90A is kleptographic, but the other three, including the CTR_DRBG are uncontroversial. RdRand is known to use the CTR_DRBG algorithm, so the
979:
I'm not settled either way if an encyclopedia has reason to include Ts'o's remarks about ability to "audit" RdRand. In favor of including Ts'o's "audit" remark - one can "audit" code that extracts entropy from e.g. clock skew; I can think of other reasons in favor. Against inclusion, I have no
845:
RdRand is unique in that it is defined to return an unpredictable result. The results of other instructions can be tested; for example, when the floating point division instruction was producing incorrect results in some Intel chips, other instruction sequences could be used to calculate the
1018:
We use rdrand as _one_ of many inputs into the random pool, and we use it as a way to _improve_ that random pool. So even if rdrand were to be back-doored by the NSA, our use of rdrand actually improves the quality of the random numbers you get from /dev/random. Really short answer: you're
1148:
Bull
Mountain is the project name for the RNG that RdRand uses. It is named after Bull Mountain, Oregon. The name was coined sometime between 2008 and 2010. Edward Snowden released details of Bullrun in 2013. Lacking clairvoyance, the names are not causally connected.
690:
In addition, the recently announced RdSeed instruction available on future processors will provide ideal random numbers, compliant with the forthcoming SP800-90B & C specification, albeit more slowly than RdRand. RdSeed uses a CS-PRNG for speed and rate
955:
I also propose critic s/b id'd as "Linux kernel contributor" Ts'o and his remarks s/b phrased as an allegation on his part that he experienced "pressure" from Intel engrs to do that. After that the referenced link to Ts'o's G+ page may be enough, let's
732:
There is no need for an example because the rdrand instruction on my Ivy Bridge laptop causes an illegal instruction exception. Those x86/AMD64 chips are getting so dirty and full of antiquated junk that they are hardly to be relied on any more.
1033:
to such criticism, saying "We use rdrand as one of many inputs in to the random pool...our use of rdrand actually improves the quality of the random numbers you get" from Linux's mechanism for providing random numbers to programs that need
891:
This: "One of the standards it relies on, NIST SP800-90, was led by an NSA employee" needs to be substantiated or deleted. SP800-90 lists Elaine Barker and John Kelsey as authors. To my knowledge they are NIST employees, not NSA employees.
985:
references to any of that material right this moment bec. gov't sites down including NIST (I think the proximate cause for server shutdown may be, ironically, nobody to watch the firewalls during budget stalemate).
177:
378:
1433:
1418:
1240:- There are 25 other SSL/TLS packages in existence, who put WolfSSL here? - WolfSSL isn't mentioned or cited anywhere in the main body - WolfSSL's Knowledge (XXG) page doesn't mention RDRAND at all
1403:
717:
486:
783:
910:
be editing this page? He appears to be the designer of the instruction which is the subject of the
Knowledge (XXG) article. I think this relationship is a little close for maintaining a
684:
The goal here was to create a random number generator that was compliant to published standards (specifically, SP800-90A) for cryptographically secure RNGs, not to create an ideal RNG.
1179:
The example ASM code does not work under Ubuntu 18.04, NASM version 2.13.02. I guess technically it's still instructive to have the code there, but NASM gives a bunch of errors.
961:
Remaining 2 issues in that paragraph are, shall we say that Mr. Ts'o cited as supporting evidence the NY Times quote? And shall we say that Ts'o favors improved ability to audit?
1383:
1109:
editors should announce themselves per usual, and make suggestions here. I moved the linked title (following MOS) to the see also, and now that the long-suspected backdoor in
1413:
407:
1398:
383:
1083:
NIST site now back up after gov't out of suspend mode. Some relevant stuff there causes me to feel we're still not there yet, and I'm grateful for a little more patience.
721:
1028:
have expressed doubts about the integrity of RdRand and have implied that governments have secretly compromised the security of the instruction. Lead Linux developer
1304:
808:
kleptographic nature of the Dual_EC_DRBG is irrelevant to RdRand and it is incorrect to imply that criticism of the Dual_EC_DRBG constitute criticism of RdRand.
171:
335:
103:
950:
I propose delete remarks about Dual EC DRBG as I don't see relevance - DBRG is code. RdRand is IIRC a pair of chattering flipflops - there's no app for that.
1408:
1393:
1368:
325:
420:
402:
260:
1378:
359:
623:
1122:
109:
1443:
1423:
613:
301:
1164:
938:
1313:
740:
670:
54:
922:) 07:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC) A fair point. Perhaps someone else would care to keep the content objective. It certainly isn't right now.
1448:
1438:
1363:
1253:
1058:
That seems like a reasonable change. Right now the
Criticisms section disproportionately skews the article and is frankly going against
599:
1301:
I think some mention should be made of the bugged versions in some AMD devices that may not be fixed unless a revised AGESA is loaded.
575:
1373:
815:
692:
911:
284:
251:
123:
787:
354:
256:
128:
44:
1287:
1071:
98:
1428:
1305:
https://linuxreviews.org/AMD_Ryzen_3000_series_CPUs_can%27t_do_Random_on_boot_causing_Boot_Failure_on_newer_Linux_distributions
226:
1388:
68:
1023:
So that seems to suggest a
Controversy section would replace the Criticisms section. I propose the following two sentences:
566:
524:
89:
1114:
767:
469:
192:
645:
How often is the deterministic generator seeded by the non deterministic conditioner seeded by the entropy source?
159:
495:
Create the
Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
133:
1337:
1160:
934:
897:
835:
654:
1317:
744:
674:
232:
1257:
1012:
1309:
1249:
1152:
926:
811:
779:
736:
713:
666:
1156:
930:
907:
893:
831:
830:
instructions. Trust in the hardware platform has to be established by means outside the running software.
819:
696:
650:
297:
1199:
1102:
79:
574:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
300:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
153:
94:
976:
report that casts doubt on all `chips' and `chipmakers' though not RdRand in particular" or like that.
1283:
1279:
1067:
1063:
685:
1212:
Article needs to be updated. This C++ function is from a Qt
Creator 4.10.1 project using gcc 9.2.0.
1182:
876:
cannot be achieved merely by delegating the whole matter to a single all-encompassing instruction.
214:
1345:
185:
149:
1118:
1246:
I think WolfSSL should be removed, or we should add in Botan, mBed TLS, MatrixSSL, GnuTLS, etc.
1237:
Why is WolfSSL mentioned under "See Also"? (BTW I've used WolfSSL, I have nothing against it)
1136:
1125:
1009:
Hold the phone. In fact-checking proposed change I came across this quote from Linus
Torvalds.
663:
Why is the random number not used directly, but applied as seed to a pseudorandom generator?
464:
199:
75:
1059:
605:
1223:
919:
881:
866:
851:
763:
1106:
1088:
1049:
998:
1341:
1029:
498:
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.
1357:
165:
1131:
1110:
558:
1041:
to something related to the change.org petition that was suspended, and <3: -->
392:
710:
It would be nice to add an asssembler example that would screen a random number
1219:
915:
877:
862:
847:
759:
1336:, per the naming convention of other similar articles on x86 instructions (see
649:
since the last reseed, since it will halt for power saving purposes when idle.
368:
344:
276:
245:
1084:
1045:
994:
548:
293:
17:
1013:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2013/09/10/torvalds_on_rrrand_nsa_gchq/
289:
1243:
This smells like shilling, which pains me to say (again, WolfSSL user).
1340:
for the others), and compatibility with Intel's own documentation. --
454:
1333:
48:
571:
552:
1039:
I've never had luck with footnotes in Talk: pages so, <1: -->
1128:
being a coincidence or not linking Bullrun and Bull Mountain.
608:
in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
604:
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
542:
518:
208:
39:
26:
1349:
1321:
1290:
1261:
1227:
1207:
1168:
1140:
1092:
1074:
1053:
1002:
942:
901:
885:
870:
855:
839:
823:
791:
771:
758:
Hm, why would RdRand be categorized as "antiquated junk"? —
748:
725:
700:
678:
658:
453:
391:
367:
343:
972:
quote in such a context, it needs to note something like "
446:
441:
436:
431:
184:
1434:
Start-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
1419:
C-Class Computer Security articles of High-importance
1404:
C-Class Computer hardware articles of Mid-importance
570:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
288:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
198:
476:Review importance and quality of existing articles
1113:has been leaked, a source linking or not linking
479:Identify categories related to Computer Security
57:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1117:would help the above and provide appropriate
8:
776:Because it's an instruction set from 1978.
1384:C-Class software articles of Low-importance
1414:High-importance Computer Security articles
1307:
1247:
1150:
777:
513:
485:Identify articles for creation (see also:
415:
240:
1399:Mid-importance Computer hardware articles
467:. Please allow some days for processing.
718:2A02:8422:1191:6E00:56E6:FCFF:FEDB:2BBA
515:
242:
212:
912:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view
310:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Computing
7:
1101:I renamed the criticism section per
784:2606:B300:1022:0:7CAF:5984:F0B7:CDCF
564:This article is within the scope of
282:This article is within the scope of
231:It is of interest to the following
47:for discussing improvements to the
1409:C-Class Computer Security articles
1394:C-Class Computer hardware articles
1369:High-importance Computing articles
606:project-independent quality rating
25:
584:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Linux
492:Identify articles for improvement
74:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
1379:Low-importance software articles
1269:
968:If an encyclopedia includes the
551:
541:
517:
275:
244:
213:
69:Click here to start a new topic.
1042:to the article in The Register.
1040:would refer to Ts'o, <2: -->
618:This article has been rated as
330:This article has been rated as
1444:High-importance Linux articles
1424:All Computer Security articles
313:Template:WikiProject Computing
1:
726:12:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
701:21:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
659:20:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
578:and see a list of open tasks.
463:will be generated shortly by
421:WikiProject Computer Security
403:WikiProject Computer Security
400:This article is supported by
376:This article is supported by
352:This article is supported by
304:and see a list of open tasks.
66:Put new text under old text.
1350:10:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
1322:07:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
1291:15:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
1262:13:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
1228:01:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
1169:22:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
1115:Bullrun (decryption program)
1093:06:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
1075:03:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
1054:02:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
379:Computer hardware task force
1332:I've moved this article to
1141:00:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
1003:21:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
943:21:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
902:00:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
886:07:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
871:07:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
856:07:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
840:00:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
824:00:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
679:13:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
1465:
1449:WikiProject Linux articles
1439:Start-Class Linux articles
1364:C-Class Computing articles
1026:"Various critics<1: -->
624:project's importance scale
587:Template:WikiProject Linux
336:project's importance scale
1374:C-Class software articles
1338:Category:x86 instructions
772:17:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
749:03:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
617:
603:
536:
414:
399:
375:
351:
329:
270:
239:
104:Be welcoming to newcomers
33:Skip to table of contents
1208:21:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
792:18:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
32:
1429:All Computing articles
458:
396:
372:
348:
298:information technology
221:This article is rated
99:avoid personal attacks
1389:All Software articles
1060:neutral point of view
457:
395:
371:
347:
285:WikiProject Computing
225:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
124:Neutral point of view
1216:return randNum; }
482:Tag related articles
419:Things you can help
355:WikiProject Software
129:No original research
1032:responded<3: -->
470:More information...
459:
397:
373:
349:
316:Computing articles
227:content assessment
110:dispute resolution
71:
1324:
1312:comment added by
1264:
1252:comment added by
1204:
1171:
1155:comment added by
1126:Bull Run Mountain
946:
929:comment added by
814:comment added by
794:
782:comment added by
739:comment added by
716:comment added by
669:comment added by
638:
637:
634:
633:
630:
629:
567:WikiProject Linux
512:
511:
508:
507:
504:
503:
207:
206:
90:Assume good faith
67:
38:
37:
16:(Redirected from
1456:
1277:
1273:
1272:
1205:
1198:
1195:
1192:
1139:
1134:
945:
923:
826:
751:
728:
681:
592:
591:
588:
585:
582:
561:
556:
555:
545:
538:
537:
532:
529:
521:
514:
487:Article requests
472:
416:
318:
317:
314:
311:
308:
279:
272:
271:
266:
263:
248:
241:
224:
218:
217:
209:
203:
202:
188:
119:Article policies
40:
27:
21:
1464:
1463:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1354:
1353:
1330:
1328:Name of article
1299:
1270:
1268:
1241:
1235:
1217:
1202:
1197:
1190:
1186:
1183:
1180:
1177:
1157:David in oregon
1130:
1129:
931:David in oregon
924:
908:David in oregon
894:David in oregon
832:David in oregon
809:
805:
734:
711:
708:
664:
651:David in oregon
643:
641:Unnamed section
620:High-importance
589:
586:
583:
580:
579:
557:
550:
531:High‑importance
530:
527:
473:
468:
451:
408:High-importance
332:High-importance
315:
312:
309:
306:
305:
265:High‑importance
264:
254:
222:
145:
140:
139:
138:
115:
85:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1462:
1460:
1452:
1451:
1446:
1441:
1436:
1431:
1426:
1421:
1416:
1411:
1406:
1401:
1396:
1391:
1386:
1381:
1376:
1371:
1366:
1356:
1355:
1329:
1326:
1314:24.156.255.250
1298:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1239:
1234:
1231:
1214:
1200:
1188:
1184:
1176:
1173:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1096:
1095:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1043:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1030:Linus Torvalds
1021:
1015:
1010:
1006:
1005:
989:
988:
987:
986:
977:
963:
962:
958:
957:
952:
951:
889:
888:
873:
858:
804:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
753:
752:
741:14.162.190.154
707:
704:
671:77.191.195.246
642:
639:
636:
635:
632:
631:
628:
627:
616:
610:
609:
602:
596:
595:
593:
590:Linux articles
576:the discussion
563:
562:
546:
534:
533:
522:
510:
509:
506:
505:
502:
501:
500:
499:
496:
493:
490:
483:
480:
477:
461:Article alerts
452:
450:
449:
444:
439:
434:
428:
425:
424:
412:
411:
398:
388:
387:
384:Mid-importance
374:
364:
363:
360:Low-importance
350:
340:
339:
328:
322:
321:
319:
302:the discussion
280:
268:
267:
249:
237:
236:
230:
219:
205:
204:
142:
141:
137:
136:
131:
126:
117:
116:
114:
113:
106:
101:
92:
86:
84:
83:
72:
63:
62:
59:
58:
52:
36:
35:
30:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1461:
1450:
1447:
1445:
1442:
1440:
1437:
1435:
1432:
1430:
1427:
1425:
1422:
1420:
1417:
1415:
1412:
1410:
1407:
1405:
1402:
1400:
1397:
1395:
1392:
1390:
1387:
1385:
1382:
1380:
1377:
1375:
1372:
1370:
1367:
1365:
1362:
1361:
1359:
1352:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1327:
1325:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1306:
1302:
1296:
1292:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1276:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1254:76.95.209.173
1251:
1244:
1238:
1232:
1230:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1213:
1210:
1209:
1206:
1203:
1194:
1193:
1174:
1172:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1142:
1138:
1133:
1127:
1123:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1081:
1076:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1044:
1038:
1031:
1025:
1024:
1022:
1020:
1016:
1014:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1004:
1000:
996:
991:
990:
983:
978:
975:
971:
967:
966:
965:
964:
960:
959:
954:
953:
949:
948:
947:
944:
940:
936:
932:
928:
921:
917:
913:
909:
904:
903:
899:
895:
887:
883:
879:
874:
872:
868:
864:
859:
857:
853:
849:
844:
843:
842:
841:
837:
833:
827:
825:
821:
817:
813:
802:
793:
789:
785:
781:
775:
774:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
756:
755:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
731:
730:
729:
727:
723:
719:
715:
705:
703:
702:
698:
694:
688:
687:
682:
680:
676:
672:
668:
661:
660:
656:
652:
646:
640:
625:
621:
615:
612:
611:
607:
601:
598:
597:
594:
577:
573:
569:
568:
560:
554:
549:
547:
544:
540:
539:
535:
526:
523:
520:
516:
497:
494:
491:
488:
484:
481:
478:
475:
474:
471:
466:
462:
456:
448:
445:
443:
440:
438:
435:
433:
430:
429:
427:
426:
422:
418:
417:
413:
409:
406:(assessed as
405:
404:
394:
390:
389:
385:
382:(assessed as
381:
380:
370:
366:
365:
361:
358:(assessed as
357:
356:
346:
342:
341:
337:
333:
327:
324:
323:
320:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
286:
281:
278:
274:
273:
269:
262:
258:
253:
250:
247:
243:
238:
234:
228:
220:
216:
211:
210:
201:
197:
194:
191:
187:
183:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
151:
148:
147:Find sources:
144:
143:
135:
134:Verifiability
132:
130:
127:
125:
122:
121:
120:
111:
107:
105:
102:
100:
96:
93:
91:
88:
87:
81:
77:
76:Learn to edit
73:
70:
65:
64:
61:
60:
56:
50:
46:
42:
41:
34:
31:
29:
28:
19:
1331:
1308:— Preceding
1303:
1300:
1274:
1248:— Preceding
1245:
1242:
1236:
1218:
1211:
1196:
1181:
1178:
1151:— Preceding
1147:
1111:Dual EC DRBG
1103:WP:CRITICISM
1017:
982:and document
981:
973:
969:
925:— Preceding
905:
890:
828:
816:192.55.54.41
810:— Preceding
806:
778:— Preceding
735:— Preceding
712:— Preceding
709:
693:192.55.55.41
689:
683:
665:— Preceding
662:
647:
644:
619:
565:
559:Linux portal
460:
401:
377:
353:
331:
283:
233:WikiProjects
195:
189:
181:
174:
168:
162:
156:
146:
118:
43:This is the
528:Start‑class
172:free images
55:not a forum
18:Talk:RdRand
1358:Categories
1280:Locke Cole
1064:Locke Cole
1027:<2: -->
1342:The Anome
1121:(such as
1119:WP:WEIGHT
1019:ignorant.
803:Criticism
691:matching.
465:AAlertBot
307:Computing
294:computing
290:computers
252:Computing
112:if needed
95:Be polite
45:talk page
1310:unsigned
1250:unsigned
1233:WolfSSL?
1165:contribs
1153:unsigned
974:NY Times
970:NY Times
956:discuss:
939:contribs
927:unsigned
812:unsigned
780:unsigned
768:contribs
737:unsigned
714:unsigned
667:unsigned
261:Security
257:Software
80:get help
53:This is
51:article.
1297:AMD Bug
1175:Example
1132:Widefox
906:Should
706:example
622:on the
437:history
334:on the
223:C-class
178:WPÂ refs
166:scholar
1334:RDRAND
1220:Hpfeil
1107:WP:COI
1105:. Any
916:Gnuish
878:Gnuish
863:Gnuish
848:Gnuish
760:Dsimic
296:, and
229:scale.
150:Google
49:RDRAND
1201:Talk!
1191:ombat
1085:munge
1046:munge
1034:them.
995:munge
600:Start
581:Linux
572:Linux
525:Linux
447:purge
442:watch
423:with:
193:JSTOR
154:books
108:Seek
1346:talk
1318:talk
1275:Done
1258:talk
1224:talk
1161:talk
1137:talk
1089:talk
1050:talk
999:talk
935:talk
920:talk
898:talk
882:talk
867:talk
852:talk
836:talk
820:talk
788:talk
764:talk
745:talk
722:talk
697:talk
686:John
675:talk
655:talk
614:High
432:edit
326:High
186:FENS
160:news
97:and
1124:),
1062:. —
200:TWL
1360::
1348:)
1320:)
1286:•
1282:•
1260:)
1226:)
1189:â™ C
1187:ir
1167:)
1163:•
1135:;
1091:)
1070:•
1066:•
1052:)
1001:)
941:)
937:•
914:.
900:)
884:)
869:)
854:)
838:)
822:)
790:)
770:)
766:|
747:)
724:)
699:)
677:)
657:)
410:).
386:).
362:).
292:,
259:/
255::
180:)
78:;
1344:(
1316:(
1288:c
1284:t
1278:—
1256:(
1222:(
1185:A
1159:(
1087:(
1072:c
1068:t
1048:(
997:(
933:(
918:(
896:(
880:(
865:(
850:(
834:(
818:(
786:(
762:(
743:(
720:(
695:(
673:(
653:(
626:.
489:)
338:.
235::
196:·
190:·
182:·
175:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
152:(
82:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
