Re^3: A better rand() for Win32

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.

"Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."

Comment on Re^3: A better rand() for Win32

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: A better rand() for Win32 by bart (Canon) on Jul 31, 2007 at 21:19 UTC
He says "cryptographically secure random number generator". How can I be misreading that?	[reply]
Re^5: A better rand() for Win32 by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jul 31, 2007 at 21:49 UTC
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. "Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."	[reply]
Re^6: A better rand() for Win32 by bart (Canon) on Aug 01, 2007 at 06:30 UTC
Like maybe, what makes this cryptographically secure as opposed to the current best-of-breed PRNG, the Mersenne Twister. Look, no need to attack me for this, I'm a Mersenne Twister fan myself, but the authors of the MT themselves say in big blinking letters do not use for cryptographic purposes. Surely you must have read that? I have no idea if the algorithm here is suitable. The author himself says it is. That is clearly a difference in positioning. I have no use for cryptographic purposes, so I don't feel the need to investigate. And now, fuck off.	[reply]
Re^7: A better rand() for Win32 by bitshiftleft (Sexton) on Aug 01, 2007 at 17:56 UTC
Re^8: A better rand() for Win32 by syphilis (Archbishop) on Aug 02, 2007 at 07:03 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here


Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister
	PerlMonks