[53206] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: handling weak keys using random selection and CSPRNGs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marcos el Ruptor)
Mon Oct 16 14:43:31 2006
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
From: "Marcos el Ruptor" <Ruptor@cryptolib.com>
To: "Cryptography" <cryptography@metzdowd.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:22:24 +0200
> Now, you said "compressed files" and you might not have meant
> pictures, but note that L-Z style compressed files don't really have
> much in the way of headers. If the headers were a problem, you'd
> expect longer files to bury any deviation in the noise, but it
> doesn't. The longer the files I test the more certainly non-random
> they are.
>
> I stand by my statements.
>
> Greg.
Hello, Greg!
I did not say anything about pictures. I only said that it's not that hard
to find a compression algorithm or a source of randomness or a simple PRNG
that will pass all kinds of randomness tests. You said it's hard, I said it
wasn't. Maybe you want to try testing something packed with WinRK or Durilca
for example. You could probably even test the whole files packed with
them...
Although I totally agree with you that JPEG or ZIP (Deflate) or LZ
compressed data could only pass randomness tests if the data was random to
begin with. But come on, such weak ancient algorithms hardly qualify as
randomness benchmarks. Modern decent compression algorithms like those used
in Stuffit or Allume reduce JPEGs by about 25% or so (losslessly). No wonder
your tests show a bias!
On the other hand, maybe you have an amazing brilliant randomness test there
that fails all the compressed files and makes diehard look like a baby's
rattle... If that is the case, do share! ;-)
Ruptor
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
