> as opposed to one of the NIST's DRBG I certainly wouldn't go anywhere near another NIST DRBG.. > https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/438 https://eprint.iacr.org/20

> as opposed to one of the NIST's DRBG I certainly wouldn't go anywhere near another NIST DRBG.. > https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/438 https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/438 From my brief understanding Aumasson's paper uses a different seeding routine from the example provided in the c implementation which allows the weaker states to be produced - indeed it's mentioned on the author's website. > Finally, why is deterministic PRNG suggested as a replacement for OpenSSL's random number generator? In general, the advice to write your own userspace PRNG replacement for OpenSSL is not a good advice, because many people are not competent enough to do it. If you read my above post I clearly do not suggest this.