4 ms·
While this may be an interesting theoretical result it almost certainly has zero practical implications for cryptography. We already know how to build secure r
by hannob 10y ago
While this may be an interesting theoretical result it almost certainly has zero practical implications for cryptography.
We already know how to build secure random number generators. Pretty much every real world problem with random numbers can be traced back to people not using secure random numbers (or not using random numbers at all due to bugs) or using random number generators before they were properly initialized (early boot time entropy problems).
This random number thing is so clouded in mystery and a lot of stuff gets proposed that solves nothing (like quantum RNGs) and stuff that's more folklore than anything else (depleting entropy and the whole /dev/random story). In the end it's quite simple: You can build a secure RNG out of any secure hash or symmetric cipher. Once you seeded it with a couple of random bytes it's secure forever.
- erikb 10y agoI'm far from being an expert, but I doubt that. "it's quite simple" - Are we talking security here? Then that phrase can't apply. "You can build a secure <something> out of any <something else>." - Is that how security works? "it's secure forever." - Gung'f jung Pnrfne fnvq. (This sentence is "encrypted" in case that's not clear)
- dkopi 10y agoPrnfre pvcure vf nyfb xabja nf EBG13
- erikb 10y agoYeah, one of them. I think the number is flexible for good old Caesar.
- tptacek 10y agoHanno is in fact an expert, and the opinion he's relating (particularly, the frustration with breakable Rube Goldberg random number generators people build) is shared by most crypto engineers.
- caf 10y agoA "couple" meaning literally two?