Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 May 1996 17:01:01 +0200 | From | Andries.Brouwer@cwi ... | Subject | Re: CONFIG_RANDOM (compromise?) |
| |
Harald Anlauf:
:: It seems that most of the people who are flaming on this topic have no :: idea how weak a pseudo-random number generator really is. Only a few :: values is all you generally need before you can completely predict the :: output of such a best.
: People seem to be too paranoid about the quality of pseudo random number : generators, but why don't you just ask the experts out there?
: A friend of mine pointed me to the errata list of volume two of Donald : E. Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming". There, DEK has suggested : a very good portable random number generator. It generates 30-bit : integers with the following properties:
An interesting post. Does `the experts out there' refer to `A friend of mine'?
Have you read Knuth's paper Donald E. Knuth, Deciphering a linear congruential encryption, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 31 (1985), no. 1, 49--52 ?
Just in case you haven't, let me include the summary.
"We show that the multiplier, the increment, and the seed value of a linear congruential random number generator on a binary computer can be deduced from the leading bits of the `random' numbers that are generated."
So at least Knuth is very aware of the fact that pseudo random number generators that are satisfactory for statistical purposes are very weak for cryptographical purposes.
Andries
| |