4 ms·

There aren't many compelling reasons to use insecure RNGs. In very few applications is the RNG your bottleneck. In many applications there are negative conseque

There aren't many compelling reasons to use insecure RNGs. In very few applications is the RNG your bottleneck. In many applications there are negative consequences to your RNG being compromised.

SeanLuke 7y ago
> In many applications there are negative consequences to your RNG being compromised. Witness the security researcher's mindset. RNGs aren't just used in security applications. A large chunk of RNG needs are in simulation. Simulation has no need for security guarantees. It does need to be as fast as possible. A great many secure generators are pokey.
- RL_Quine 7y ago
  There’s always the danger people misuse rng output unfortunately, see math.random() being used for cryptography almost incessantly.
  - GTP 7y ago
    Yes, but I don't see this as a good reason to drop all fast but not cryptogaphycally secure prng from which simulations can gain an advantage. Every exising tool can be misused, not providing the tool at all is an extreme measure that in this specific case I think wouldn't even solve the problem: if a programmer does the mistake to use a non crypto secure prng for cryptography is very likely that he will also do other mistakes like reusing nonces or leaking memory or other less trivial errors. What I think is important is whenever somebody proposes a new prng to clearly state if it's cryptograpycally secure or not.
RL_Quine 7y ago
No, there’s not for most applications where you don’t need determinism.