[129313] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: On the "randomness" of DNS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ben Laurie)
Wed Jul 30 17:49:39 2008
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:33:28 +0100
From: Ben Laurie <ben@links.org>
To: Pierre-Evariste Dagand <pedagand@gmail.com>
CC: cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <6cb897b30807301222x71def6aai948cc5d23617d70@mail.gmail.com>
Pierre-Evariste Dagand wrote:
>> I doubt you can get a large enough sample in any reasonable time.
>
> Indeed.
>
>>> I don't see the point of evaluating the quality of a random number
>>> generator by statistical tests.
>> Which is entirely my point.
>
> I fear I was not clear: I don't see what is wrong in evaluating the
> quality of a random number generator with (an extensive set of)
> statistical tests.
SHA-1(1), SHA-1(2), SHA-1(3), ... SHA-1(N) will look random, but clearly
is not.
> For sure, it would be better if we could check the source code and
> match the implemented RNG against an already known RNG.
>
> But, then, there is a "the chicken or the egg" problem: how would you
> ensure that a *new* RNG is a good source of "randomness" ? (it's not a
> rhetorical questions, I'm curious about other approaches).
By reviewing the algorithm and thinking hard.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.links.org/
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
