> The idea that a lot of people get from that is that urandom is not much better than Mersenne twister > And yes, you're right, the argument is precisely "comp

> The idea that a lot of people get from that is that urandom is not much better than Mersenne twister > And yes, you're right, the argument is precisely "computational security is good enough". Point of order. MT is not, and is not meant to be, a cryptographically secure random number generator. Generally speaking, good RNGs may be divided into two categories. First, there are RNGs designed for simulation. Goals: high periods, strong statistical randomness, and speed. Then there are RNGs designed for crypto. These have one primary goal: that even if you knew how the RNG worked, and had a long stream of previous output, you could not [easily] predict the next output. MT is in the first category. It is trivially predictable given about 650 past integers, since they collectively defined its internal seed.