[104667] in Cypherpunks
Re: PRNGs and testers.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Honig)
Mon Oct 26 15:07:10 1998
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:09:33 -0800
To: Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@stud.uni-muenchen.de>
From: David Honig <honig@sprynet.com>
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <36343727.F2E8A921@stud.uni-muenchen.de>
Reply-To: David Honig <honig@sprynet.com>
At 09:47 AM 10/26/98 +0100, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>David Honig wrote:
>> Now run Maurer's test; I've posted a version for blocksize = 16.
>> The cipher-PRNG output will not have the entropy expected for randomness.
>> The physical-random file will.
>>
>
>I don't see you have answered my question of whether a test has to
>take into consideration how a sequence of numbers has been obtained.
A test measures only what it measures.
You never know if this is sufficient.
A sample of a non-random process may pass your tests
if they don't measure the right thing.
>Also what you wrote above seems to be less than clear. Do you suggest
>that Mauerer's test is extremely good in deciding whether a sequence
>is TRULY random? (I think Maurer's test is good for investigating
I only find it interesting that the test can distinguish between
the two data samples. To the eye, or ear, or Diehard, they appear the same.
>What if some PRNGs pass Maurer's test?
>
>M. K. Shen
I'd find it surprising if any did, given what I described.
DH
