Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator

From	Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org>
Newsgroups	gnu.bash.bug
Subject	Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator
Date	2018-12-03 12:35 -0500
Message-ID	<mailman.5093.1543858570.1284.bug-bash@gnu.org> (permalink)
References	<CA+4vN7zoPwhL5E82pDb=20yk4Dxdj=iRJiY2mmsbAtN1yqSeZw@mail.gmail.com> <868cc2da-cf67-298f-4640-ab1afcf857e0@case.edu> <CA+4vN7wkuCya7FES1HXiyFTF3a=pkVSdhVCthmjR29OwCAKZng@mail.gmail.com> <fa0b238c-9cb5-a840-ec6b-15cfd11d15cd@case.edu> <CA+4vN7zP26E6o13ysfppv8zjMWDV5BgQNQ1i6GP-3pg_ewVVeA@mail.gmail.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 05:31:18PM +0100, Ole Tange wrote:
> Luckily I did not just assume that Bash delivers high quality random
> numbers, but I read the source code, and then found that the quality
> was low. I do not think must users would do that.

You're correct.  Most users would not have to read the source code to
know that the built-in PRNG in bash (or in libc, or in basically ANY
other standard thing) is of lower than cryptographic quality.

Most users already KNOW this.

Back to gnu.bash.bug | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-12-03 12:35 -0500

csiph-web