At 03:16 PM 7/21/99 -0500, John Kelsey wrote: >Suppose God, in a fit of budget-consciouness, decides to get >rid of all this wasteful hardware for generating random >numbers that are necessary for quantum mechanics, and >instead replaces them with a PRNG with a 256-bit seed. In >this case, all hardware noise sources are ultimately tapping >into this same seed and PRNG. How will you, or anyone, tell >the difference? (This assumes that God can find some good >pseudorandom function families, of course.) Eventually one rng could catch up to another one, and from then on, they would predict each other forever. This is not possible before the GAO (Gods Accounting Office) cuts the quantum project. So there is a definate (albeit hypothetical) test. Excellent illustration, though.
- Re: Summary re: /dev/rando... Derek Atkins
- Re: linux-ipsec: Re: Summa... Gary E. Miller
- Re: linux-ipsec: Re: Summa... Henry Spencer
- semantics of /dev/{u}rando... William Allen Simpson
- Another web secure mail se... John R Levine
- Re: depleting the random n... Arnold G. Reinhold
- Re: depleting the random numbe... John Kelsey
- Re: depleting the random n... bram
- Re: depleting the random n... Bill Frantz
- Re: depleting the random number generat... John Kelsey
- Re: depleting the random number gen... David Honig
- Re: depleting the random number gen... Bill Stewart
- Re: depleting the random number gen... Ben Laurie
- Re: depleting the random number generator Sandy Harris
- Re: depleting the random number generator Marc Horowitz
- RE: depleting the random number generator David Honig
- RE: depleting the random number generator Enzo Michelangeli