Since this post here specifically mentions suitability for cryptographic purposes
Read again.
The only mention of 'cryptography' is the bland statement: " Cryptographically generated random numbers gather entropy to seed there generators." which is, by no reading that I can ascribe, the same as "suitability for cryptographic purposes".
And, it might serve your purpose better to read an entire thread before going off half cocked.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
He says "cryptographically secure random number generator". How can I be misreading that?
| [reply] |
Oh. I see. The author says in the the comments of his 10 line Perl script that it is a "cryptographically secure random number generator", and so you take that at face value and believe it?
Or, perhaps, you might investigate what makes it such. For example, you might see the reference to a third party library and wonder what that's about. And if your investigations of that didn't lead you to suitable information, you might come back and ask one or two questions of the author. Like maybe, what makes this cryptographically secure as opposed to the current best-of-breed PRNG, the Mersenne Twister.
Or then again, maybe you wouldn't. But of course, you don't have to, because I already did that.
You might also wonder about the security of a CSPRNG that exposes itself to 'remote code execution vulnerabilities'. Or not. But again, you do not have to, because I already did that too.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
