Latest reviewed change
source content difference between and
The pull request state changed from Open to Merged, and the page rendered additional contributor labels.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
+Contributor
Summary
Adds a small entropy-source health check to ngu.random.
Each source word is rejected when it is zero or matches either of the two most recently accepted words. Zero rejection stays in random.c, where the platform policy belongs. The helper tracks initialization explicitly, so zero is treated as real history when the helper is tested on its own.
This was referenced Aug 1, 2026
First lines only. The complete diff is in the timeline below.
- Organisation
- switck
- Evidence role
- Repository pull request
- Published
- not established
- Source changes
- 2
- Detected differences
- 3
- Unreviewed
- 0
- Copies held
- 4
Second of the three-PR split of #59, open at first capture on 7 Aug 2026 with one commit. Registered from its own page rather than from the title shown on #59 and #61.
Every check is recorded, including checks that found no text change. A detected edit is therefore bounded between two checks. The publisher's exact save time is not observable from this record. Last checked .
This post is held twice: here, with this project's own note on why it matters, and again as part of the conversation captured at , which is polled for changes. Both copies are the same post; neither is a separate event.
Snapshot and diff bodies for this chain monitor are held in the local evidence archive but withheld from the public site because they can contain the addresses of people who published nothing themselves. Capture times and reviewed change summaries remain available below.
Held captures
-
The pull request state changed from Open to Merged, and the page rendered additional contributor labels.
Recovered from the Internet Archive rather than captured by this project. The row records that third-party provenance separately from captures made by this project.
What changed from the previous capture 4 lines
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. Copy link Copy Markdown +Contributor Summary Adds a small entropy-source health check to ngu.random. Each source word is rejected when it is zero or matches either of the two most recently accepted words. Zero rejection stays in random.c, where the platform policy belongs. The helper tracks initialization explicitly, so zero is treated as real history when the helper is tested on its own. This was referenced Aug 1, 2026 random: harden entropy backends and state handling #64 -Open +Merged random: fail-closed entropy backends; replace Yasmarang with CAVP-verified HMAC_DRBG #59 Closed Aug 7, 2026 Copy link Copy Markdown +Contributor Author You’re right. I rechecked SP 800-90B and the STM32L4 documentation. SP 800-90B defines the repetition-count test for consecutive equal samples and the adaptive-proportion test. It permits extra tests when they address a documented source-specific failure mode with a stated false-alarm policy.Extracted text as captured
Skip to content Navigation Menu Sign inAppearance settings Platform AI CODE CREATION GitHub CopilotWrite better code with AI GitHub Copilot appDirect agents from issue to merge MCP RegistryIntegrate external tools DEVELOPER WORKFLOWS ActionsAutomate any workflow CodespacesInstant dev environments IssuesPlan and track work Code ReviewManage code changes Code QualityEnforce quality at merge APPLICATION SECURITY GitHub Advanced SecurityFind and fix vulnerabilities Code securitySecure your code as you build Secret protectionStop leaks before they start EXPLORE Why GitHub Documentation Blog Changelog Marketplace View all features Solutions BY COMPANY SIZE Enterprises Small and medium teams Startups Nonprofits BY USE CASE App Modernization DevSecOps DevOps CI/CD View all use cases BY INDUSTRY Healthcare Financial servicesExcerpt only. The complete copy is held offline and backs quotations on this site. The original publication remains the canonical public source.
-
The author closed the pull request and posted a comment explaining that the extra A, B, A rejection is not justified by STM32 documentation or SP 800-90B and will be dropped from the rebase of #64.
Recovered from the Internet Archive rather than captured by this project. The row records that third-party provenance separately from captures made by this project.
What changed from the previous capture 22 lines
Insights random: reject two-word entropy cycles - #63 #63 -Open +Closed jgmontoya wants to merge 1 commit into switck:masterswitck/libngu:masterfrom jgmontoya:rng-2-entropy-healthjgmontoya/libngu:rng-2-entropy-healthCopy head branch name to clipboard ConversationCommits1 (1)ChecksFiles changed -Open +Closed random: reject two-word entropy cycles#63 jgmontoya wants to merge 1 commit into switck:masterswitck/libngu:masterfrom Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. All reactions +jgmontoya +commented +Aug 7, 2026 +Copy link +Copy Markdown +Author +You’re right. I rechecked SP 800-90B and the STM32L4 documentation. +SP 800-90B defines the repetition-count test for consecutive equal samples and the adaptive-proportion test. It permits extra tests when they address a documented source-specific failure mode with a stated false-alarm policy. +STM32L4 detects long constant or alternating sequences in the raw seed bits internally. I found no documented failure where one valid 32-bit A, B, A sequence indicates a failing RNG. This software check also runs on conditioned outputs such as getrandom() and arc4random(), so the STM32 raw-bit detector does not justify it. +Your probability estimate is correct for the new condition. Under uniform independent 32-bit output, the extra A, B, A rejection occurs about once per 2^32 checked words. I don’t have evidence that this false-alarm cost catches a real source fault. +I’ll close #63 and rebase #64 without this check, preserving the existing zero and adjacent-repeat behavior. Thanks for catching it. +All reactions +Sorry, something went wrong. +Uh oh! +There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. +jgmontoya +closed this +Aug 7, 2026 This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters Show hidden charactersExtracted text as captured
Skip to content Navigation Menu Sign inAppearance settings Platform AI CODE CREATION GitHub CopilotWrite better code with AI GitHub Copilot appDirect agents from issue to merge MCP RegistryIntegrate external tools DEVELOPER WORKFLOWS ActionsAutomate any workflow CodespacesInstant dev environments IssuesPlan and track work Code ReviewManage code changes Code QualityEnforce quality at merge APPLICATION SECURITY GitHub Advanced SecurityFind and fix vulnerabilities Code securitySecure your code as you build Secret protectionStop leaks before they start EXPLORE Why GitHub Documentation Blog Changelog Marketplace View all features Solutions BY COMPANY SIZE Enterprises Small and medium teams Startups Nonprofits BY USE CASE App Modernization DevSecOps DevOps CI/CD View all use cases BY INDUSTRY Healthcare Financial servicesExcerpt only. The complete copy is held offline and backs quotations on this site. The original publication remains the canonical public source.
-
Recovered from the Internet Archive rather than captured by this project. The row records that third-party provenance separately from captures made by this project.
What changed from the previous capture 0 lines
Extracted text as captured
Skip to content Navigation Menu Sign inAppearance settings Platform AI CODE CREATION GitHub CopilotWrite better code with AI GitHub Copilot appDirect agents from issue to merge MCP RegistryIntegrate external tools DEVELOPER WORKFLOWS ActionsAutomate any workflow CodespacesInstant dev environments IssuesPlan and track work Code ReviewManage code changes Code QualityEnforce quality at merge APPLICATION SECURITY GitHub Advanced SecurityFind and fix vulnerabilities Code securitySecure your code as you build Secret protectionStop leaks before they start EXPLORE Why GitHub Documentation Blog Changelog Marketplace View all features Solutions BY COMPANY SIZE Enterprises Small and medium teams Startups Nonprofits BY USE CASE App Modernization DevSecOps DevOps CI/CD View all use cases BY INDUSTRY Healthcare Financial servicesExcerpt only. The complete copy is held offline and backs quotations on this site. The original publication remains the canonical public source.
1 presentation-noise difference. Sidebar, ticker and other page chrome churn that our review classified as not being a change to what the source says.
- +5 -3 Only GitHub header chrome changed. The 'Sign in' and 'Appearance settings' labels split onto separate lines, and the search prompt changed from 'Type / to search' to 'Search/'.
The excerpts and plain unified diffs above show the text this project held and how it changed. To verify a quotation, compare it against the page itself or against the Internet Archive's copies, which are independent of this project.
Complete captures are held offline rather than mirrored here, so this page shows diffs and excerpts. If a quotation is ever disputed, the full copy can be produced. Ask.
Compare the screenshot or a quotation against the original while it is available.