3 ms·
Ahahahaha no. You can only "prove to anybody that [you] used truly random numbers not known before a certain point in time" if this supposed "anybody" trusts th
by nknighthb 13y ago
Ahahahaha no. You can only "prove to anybody that [you] used truly random numbers not known before a certain point in time" if this supposed "anybody" trusts that NIST isn't just sending out pre-generated numbers.
- anigbrowl 13y agoYou probably shouldn't use it for crypto, but this would be a big help in scientific and industrial contexts where you can just point to NIST instead of having to come up with answers about the quality of your random data source. Say for example you want to showcase some algorithm that you say performs 10% better than chance (in some field where that confers a significant time/$ advantage), this gives you a meaningful benchmark to measure against. And since all the random data is stored, it makes certification of scientific papers much more repeatable since they can just show longs of when the NIST server was accessed in the materials & methods section of a paper. There are many applications of a good random beacon besides crypto.
- michaelmior 13y agoForget how random the numbers are if your source of randomness is literally being broadcast publicly, it doesn't matter.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- sa1 13y agoIt is only not good for crypto, it remains good for other scientific applications.
- Sanddancer 13y agoThings like Monte Carlo simulations can, and have used public random numbers over the years -- the Rand Corporation's book of one million random digits [1] was used for this purpose. A public entropy source means that in verifying something, you can demonstrate that there was nothing up your sleeve when you used the points you did. [1] http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1418.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1418.html
- danielweber 13y agoI remember finding that book in the college library and sitting down to "read" it. I was fascinated that someone would make such a thing.
- nknighthb 13y agoNIST is explicitly advocating its use in security applications. I also have no trouble conceiving of a scenario in which the US government may want to make an invalid scientific paper appear valid.
- viraptor 13y agoAt the bottom of the page: WARNING: DO NOT USE BEACON GENERATED VALUES AS SECRET CRYPTOGRAPHIC KEYS. Can you point to where exactly do they advocate what you say?
- nknighthb 13y agoI said "security", not "as secret cryptographic keys". Am I the only one who read the entire page? There are three links prominently featured on the page under the "Uses" header: http://www.nist.gov/itl/csd/ct/beacon-unpredict-sampling.cfm http://www.nist.gov/itl/csd/ct/beacon-unpredict-sampling.cfm http://www.nist.gov/itl/csd/ct/beacon-new-secure-auth-mechanisms.cfm http://www.nist.gov/itl/csd/ct/beacon-new-secure-auth-mechan... http://www.nist.gov/itl/csd/ct/beacon-secure-multi-party-computation.cfm http://www.nist.gov/itl/csd/ct/beacon-secure-multi-party-com...
- dredmorbius 13y agoYou probably shouldn't use it for crypto Which the page clearly notes: "WARNING: DO NOT USE BEACON GENERATED VALUES AS SECRET CRYPTOGRAPHIC KEYS."
- EthanHeilman 13y agoUsing it for crypto and using it as a secret key are different things. You should not use it as a secret key, because it is not, in anyway, secret.