Timings for random

[Hal Murray]

gem at rellim.com said:
> rand() and RAND_pseudo_rand() are not random, just psuedo random, thus not
> for NTP.

Do you think fuzzing needs cryptographically strong randomness?

I timed RAND_pseudo_bytes() rather than RAND_bytes() because I didn't want to 
get mixed up with not enough randomness and it seemed good enough for what we 
needed.

> What about the OpenSSL RAND_bytes()? 

It's slightly faster than RAND_pseudo_bytes()  :)  ??

The man page says both will return 1 if the bytes generated are 
cryptographically strong.  I wasn't able to use up the system entropy.  Seems 
suspicious.

-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.