3 ms·
Any recoverability sounds very bad. Why shouldn’t I just use eg sha512 on the previous hash and drop half the bits?
by charlieyu1 1y ago
Any recoverability sounds very bad.
Why shouldn’t I just use eg sha512 on the previous hash and drop half the bits?
- tptacek 1y agoIt's not bad because "preventing seed recovery" isn't the job of an insecure RNG. If you care about seed recovery, you must use a secure generator. There aren't degrees of security here; PCG is insecure, and (say) the LRNG or CTR-DRBG are not.
- throwaway150 1y ago> Any recoverability sounds very bad. PRNGs are not meant to be cryptographically secure. If you don't want recoverability by all means use SHA512 or a proper CSPRNG. But saying PRNGs are bad because there is recoverability is like saying salt is bad because it isn't sweet. PRNGs are not meant for non-recoverability and salt isn't meant to be sweet.