|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Cc: Pierre-Evariste Dagand <pedagand@gmail.com>, cryptography@metzdowd.com From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik <dirkx@webweaving.org> To: Ben Laurie <ben@links.org> In-Reply-To: <4890D018.7080409@links.org> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:14:15 +0100 On 30 Jul 2008, at 21:33, Ben Laurie wrote: >> 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. But even then - is that really 'possible' - or is this fundamentally a black art ? Dw --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |