| |||||||||||||
The dangers of weak random numbersThe dangers of weak random numbersPosted Feb 21, 2008 17:51 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)In reply to: The dangers of weak random numbers by kirkengaard Parent article: The dangers of weak random numbers
OK, what RNG would you choose and why? Please quantify. I'm just kidding -- a proper answer to this question would require writing a book. And endless debate. And the answer would change every five years. Ultimately, if you need soemthing done correctly to the last bit, would you really trust all the libcs in the world? My only problem with libc's rand() is the name. It's a flat out lie! No wonder it's confusing. It should have been called "prand" or "living_in_sin_rand" or something.
(Log in to post comments)
The dangers of weak random numbers Posted Feb 22, 2008 12:17 UTC (Fri) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link] What I don't understand is why hardware RNGs aren't more common. A number of embedded CPUs contain them, but not the bulk of mainstream CPUs. They take up so little silicon compared to everything else, and provide such high quality results that they really ought to be ubiquitous. Sure, if you introduced them on mainstream CPUs today, it'd still be 5 years before they were everywhere, so you'd still have to implement other techniques in the meantime. But, those could be a bridge to a better overall solution rather than a road to more hand wringing in 5 or 10 years when somebody finds the next weakness.
|
|||||||||||||