Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator

Path	csiph.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!usenet.stanford.edu!not-for-mail
From	Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org>
Newsgroups	gnu.bash.bug
Subject	Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator
Date	Mon, 3 Dec 2018 12:35:51 -0500
Lines	11
Approved	bug-bash@gnu.org
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>
NNTP-Posting-Host	lists.gnu.org
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace	usenet.stanford.edu 1543858571 5118 208.118.235.17 (3 Dec 2018 17:36:11 GMT)
X-Complaints-To	action@cs.stanford.edu
To	bug-bash@gnu.org
Envelope-to	bug-bash@gnu.org
Mail-Followup-To	bug-bash@gnu.org
Content-Disposition	inline
In-Reply-To	<CA+4vN7zP26E6o13ysfppv8zjMWDV5BgQNQ1i6GP-3pg_ewVVeA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent	NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
X-detected-operating-system	by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy]
X-Received-From	139.137.100.1
X-BeenThere	bug-bash@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version	2.1.21
Precedence	list
List-Id	Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell <bug-bash.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe	<https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-bash>, <mailto:bug-bash-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive	<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/>
List-Post	<mailto:bug-bash@gnu.org>
List-Help	<mailto:bug-bash-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe	<https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-bash>, <mailto:bug-bash-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Xref	csiph.com gnu.bash.bug:14889

Show key headers only | 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