Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #159974 > unrolled thread

Re: Ransomware

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-20 13:46 -0600
    Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-22 15:14 +0000
      Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-22 10:12 -0600
        Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 04:13 +1100
        Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-22 17:26 +0000
          Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-22 12:00 -0600
            Re: Ransomware sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-02-22 13:19 -0500
            Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-22 18:28 +0000
              Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-22 13:26 -0600
              Re: Ransomware Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-02-24 09:24 -0500
            Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-22 15:19 -0600
              Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 15:57 -0600
                Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-22 16:27 -0600
                  Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 17:57 -0600
              Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-22 15:59 -0600
                Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 20:54 -0600
                  Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-22 21:27 -0600
                  Re: Ransomware Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-02-25 08:33 -0500
              Re: Ransomware Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-02-24 09:23 -0500
                Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-24 08:40 -0600

#159974 — Re: Ransomware

"Osmium" wrote:
<snip>
 > But theory says you need a random number generator and, sadly, RC4 is not 
a
> random number generator.

Should be: But theory says you need a random number generator to create a 
one-time pad and, sadly, RC4 is not a random number generator. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#160098

"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
>"Osmium" wrote:
><snip>
> > But theory says you need a random number generator and, sadly, RC4 is not 
>a
>> random number generator.
>
>Should be: But theory says you need a random number generator to create a 
>one-time pad and, sadly, RC4 is not a random number generator. 
>

There's a random number generator in the CRC Math Handbook that would
work, if a bit slowly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160100

"Scott Lurndal" wrote:

>>"Osmium" wrote:
>><snip>
>> > But theory says you need a random number generator and, sadly, RC4 is
>> > not
>>a
>>> random number generator.
>>
>>Should be: But theory says you need a random number generator to create a
>>one-time pad and, sadly, RC4 is not a random number generator.
>>
>
> There's a random number generator in the CRC Math Handbook that would
> work, if a bit slowly.

Well it's not in *my* copy of CRC :-)

Are you sure it generates truly random numbers, and not *pseudo* random 
numbers? RC4 is a very good PRNG.

If they are truly random, you need the plane chugging along or else send a 
copy of the one time pad that will be used ahead of time. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160108

"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:dj0qc1FsktlU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Scott Lurndal" wrote:
>
>>>"Osmium" wrote:
>>><snip>
>>> > But theory says you need a random number generator and, sadly, RC4 is
>>> > not
>>>a
>>>> random number generator.
>>>
>>>Should be: But theory says you need a random number generator to create a
>>>one-time pad and, sadly, RC4 is not a random number generator.
>>>
>>
>> There's a random number generator in the CRC Math Handbook that would
>> work, if a bit slowly.

That would be fine when generating a new pad, the speed isnt that important 
then.

> Well it's not in *my* copy of CRC :-)
>
> Are you sure it generates truly random numbers, and not *pseudo* random 
> numbers? RC4 is a very good PRNG.
>
> If they are truly random, you need the plane chugging along or else send a 
> copy of the one time pad that will be used ahead of time.

Not when it's being used to produce the key that encrypts your phone. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160113

"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
>"Scott Lurndal" wrote:
>
>>>"Osmium" wrote:
>>><snip>
>>> > But theory says you need a random number generator and, sadly, RC4 is
>>> > not
>>>a
>>>> random number generator.
>>>
>>>Should be: But theory says you need a random number generator to create a
>>>one-time pad and, sadly, RC4 is not a random number generator.
>>>
>>
>> There's a random number generator in the CRC Math Handbook that would
>> work, if a bit slowly.
>
>Well it's not in *my* copy of CRC :-)

It's a table in the back.  You're supposed to take a pencil,
close your eyes, and touch it to the page.  My copy dates from the mid-70's
and is a box in the attic - it could have been in the chemical handbook instead.

scott

>
>Are you sure it generates truly random numbers, and not *pseudo* random 
>numbers? RC4 is a very good PRNG.
>
>If they are truly random, you need the plane chugging along or else send a 
>copy of the one time pad that will be used ahead of time. 
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160114

"Scott Lurndal" wrote:

> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
>>"Scott Lurndal" wrote:
>>
>>>>"Osmium" wrote:
>>>><snip>
>>>> > But theory says you need a random number generator and, sadly, RC4 is
>>>> > not
>>>>a
>>>>> random number generator.
>>>>
>>>>Should be: But theory says you need a random number generator to create 
>>>>a
>>>>one-time pad and, sadly, RC4 is not a random number generator.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's a random number generator in the CRC Math Handbook that would
>>> work, if a bit slowly.
>>
>>Well it's not in *my* copy of CRC :-)
>
> It's a table in the back.  You're supposed to take a pencil,
> close your eyes, and touch it to the page.  My copy dates from the 
> mid-70's
> and is a box in the attic - it could have been in the chemical handbook 
> instead.

Oh, *that*. Yes, my CRC has that, but that's just a *table* of random 
numbers not a *generator*. That's not suitable for a one time pad, since 
every college graduate of a certain age in the US with a technical degree 
has that book, so it doesn't meet the "one" criterion for a one-time pad. 
The smiley was because I thought my copy was a *lot* older than yours. It 
turns out it was just ... older.

I actually looked on the net to try to find what I thought was a program - 
didn't succeed, though. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160115

In article <dj10mkFuav1U1@mid.individual.net>,
Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Scott Lurndal" wrote:
>
>> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
>>>"Scott Lurndal" wrote:
>>>
>>>>>"Osmium" wrote:
>>>>><snip>
>>>>> > But theory says you need a random number generator and, sadly, RC4 is
>>>>> > not
>>>>>a
>>>>>> random number generator.
>>>>>
>>>>>Should be: But theory says you need a random number generator to create 
>>>>>a
>>>>>one-time pad and, sadly, RC4 is not a random number generator.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's a random number generator in the CRC Math Handbook that would
>>>> work, if a bit slowly.
>>>
>>>Well it's not in *my* copy of CRC :-)
>>
>> It's a table in the back.  You're supposed to take a pencil,
>> close your eyes, and touch it to the page.  My copy dates from the 
>> mid-70's
>> and is a box in the attic - it could have been in the chemical handbook 
>> instead.
>
>Oh, *that*. Yes, my CRC has that, but that's just a *table* of random 
>numbers not a *generator*. That's not suitable for a one time pad, since 
>every college graduate of a certain age in the US with a technical degree 
>has that book, so it doesn't meet the "one" criterion for a one-time pad. 
>The smiley was because I thought my copy was a *lot* older than yours. It 
>turns out it was just ... older.
>
>I actually looked on the net to try to find what I thought was a program - 
>didn't succeed, though. 
>


https://www.schneier.com/cryptography/solitaire/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160116

"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
>"Scott Lurndal" wrote:
>

>>>> There's a random number generator in the CRC Math Handbook that would
>>>> work, if a bit slowly.
>>>
>>>Well it's not in *my* copy of CRC :-)
>>
>> It's a table in the back.  You're supposed to take a pencil,
>> close your eyes, and touch it to the page.  My copy dates from the 
>> mid-70's
>> and is a box in the attic - it could have been in the chemical handbook 
>> instead.
>
>Oh, *that*. Yes, my CRC has that, but that's just a *table* of random 
>numbers not a *generator*. That's not suitable for a one time pad, since 
>every college graduate of a certain age in the US with a technical degree 
>has that book, so it doesn't meet the "one" criterion for a one-time pad. 
>The smiley was because I thought my copy was a *lot* older than yours. It 
>turns out it was just ... older.

It's the human with the pencil that is the generator.   How likely is it
that two people will randomly select the same set of numbers using that
method?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160118

"Scott Lurndal" wrote:

> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
>>"Scott Lurndal" wrote:
>>
>
>>>>> There's a random number generator in the CRC Math Handbook that would
>>>>> work, if a bit slowly.
>>>>
>>>>Well it's not in *my* copy of CRC :-)
>>>
>>> It's a table in the back.  You're supposed to take a pencil,
>>> close your eyes, and touch it to the page.  My copy dates from the
>>> mid-70's
>>> and is a box in the attic - it could have been in the chemical handbook
>>> instead.
>>
>>Oh, *that*. Yes, my CRC has that, but that's just a *table* of random
>>numbers not a *generator*. That's not suitable for a one time pad, since
>>every college graduate of a certain age in the US with a technical degree
>>has that book, so it doesn't meet the "one" criterion for a one-time pad.
>>The smiley was because I thought my copy was a *lot* older than yours. It
>>turns out it was just ... older.
>
> It's the human with the pencil that is the generator.   How likely is it
> that two people will randomly select the same set of numbers using that
> method?

Not very likely.  But a properly generated one-time pad is *provably* 
secure, anything else is subject to *solutions* presented by experts all 
over the world coming out of the woodwork.
----
I wonder if you have in mind the table from_Reference Data for Radio 
Engineers_?  Unless I made a mistake, there are only 6400 starting points in 
that table. I think someone with a handy-dandy library of crypto breaking 
code would break that before lunch.  ... But my point was the principle, not 
the numbers 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160167

In article <2rIyy.688$%L2.455@fx34.iad>,
 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
> >"Scott Lurndal" wrote:
> >
> 
> >>>> There's a random number generator in the CRC Math Handbook that would
> >>>> work, if a bit slowly.
> >>>
> >>>Well it's not in *my* copy of CRC :-)
> >>
> >> It's a table in the back.  You're supposed to take a pencil,
> >> close your eyes, and touch it to the page.  My copy dates from the 
> >> mid-70's
> >> and is a box in the attic - it could have been in the chemical handbook 
> >> instead.
> >
> >Oh, *that*. Yes, my CRC has that, but that's just a *table* of random 
> >numbers not a *generator*. That's not suitable for a one time pad, since 
> >every college graduate of a certain age in the US with a technical degree 
> >has that book, so it doesn't meet the "one" criterion for a one-time pad. 
> >The smiley was because I thought my copy was a *lot* older than yours. It 
> >turns out it was just ... older.
> 
> It's the human with the pencil that is the generator.   How likely is it
> that two people will randomly select the same set of numbers using that
> method?

Brute force, try every starting position.

 To terrify children with the image of hell,
 to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world?  
  Christopher Hitchens

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160129

On 2/22/2016 12:00 PM, Osmium wrote:
> "Scott Lurndal" wrote:
>
>> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
>>> "Scott Lurndal" wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "Osmium" wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> > But theory says you need a random number generator and, sadly,
>>>>> RC4 is
>>>>> > not
>>>>> a
>>>>>> random number generator.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should be: But theory says you need a random number generator to
>>>>> create a
>>>>> one-time pad and, sadly, RC4 is not a random number generator.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's a random number generator in the CRC Math Handbook that would
>>>> work, if a bit slowly.
>>>
>>> Well it's not in *my* copy of CRC :-)
>>
>> It's a table in the back.  You're supposed to take a pencil,
>> close your eyes, and touch it to the page.  My copy dates from the
>> mid-70's
>> and is a box in the attic - it could have been in the chemical
>> handbook instead.
>
> Oh, *that*. Yes, my CRC has that, but that's just a *table* of random
> numbers not a *generator*. That's not suitable for a one time pad,
> since every college graduate of a certain age in the US with a
> technical degree has that book, so it doesn't meet the "one" criterion
> for a one-time pad. The smiley was because I thought my copy was a
> *lot* older than yours. It turns out it was just ... older.
>
> I actually looked on the net to try to find what I thought was a
> program - didn't succeed, though.

It's not a program, but there's at least one website
https://www.random.org/
will provide a set of your very own random numbers. Their output has 
been certified by a number of gaming-industry bodies, though not as 
far as they know by the NSA.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160133

On 22-Feb-16 15:19, Dave Garland wrote:
> It's not a program, but there's at least one website 
> https://www.random.org/ will provide a set of your very own random
> numbers. Their output has been certified by a number of
> gaming-industry bodies, though not as far as they know by the NSA.

AFAIK, the NSA has neither authorization nor interest in certifying such
things unless the DOD wants to use them, and the NSA has its own methods
of generating random numbers for keys, so why would they?

NIST does certify products as meeting various NIST standards, so there
might be some options there.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160139

On 2/22/2016 3:57 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 22-Feb-16 15:19, Dave Garland wrote:
>> It's not a program, but there's at least one website
>> https://www.random.org/ will provide a set of your very own random
>> numbers. Their output has been certified by a number of
>> gaming-industry bodies, though not as far as they know by the NSA.
>
> AFAIK, the NSA has neither authorization nor interest in certifying such
> things unless the DOD wants to use them, and the NSA has its own methods
> of generating random numbers for keys, so why would they?
>
That bit was tongue in cheek. In any case, I'd trust the gambling 
industry, which has a large financial stake in true randomness, long 
before I'd trust the word of the NSA, who might well lie.

> NIST does certify products as meeting various NIST standards, so there
> might be some options there.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160143

On 22-Feb-16 16:27, Dave Garland wrote:
> On 2/22/2016 3:57 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 22-Feb-16 15:19, Dave Garland wrote:
>>> It's not a program, but there's at least one website 
>>> https://www.random.org/ will provide a set of your very own
>>> random numbers. Their output has been certified by a number of 
>>> gaming-industry bodies, though not as far as they know by the
>>> NSA.
>> 
>> AFAIK, the NSA has neither authorization nor interest in certifying
>> such things unless the DOD wants to use them, and the NSA has its
>> own methods of generating random numbers for keys, so why would
>> they?
> 
> That bit was tongue in cheek. In any case, I'd trust the gambling 
> industry, which has a large financial stake in true randomness, long 
> before I'd trust the word of the NSA, who might well lie.

It depends, because the NSA has two very different jobs:

1. Protect the US's classified information
2. Collect others' classified information

When IBM submitted Lucifer as a candidate for DES, the NSA demanded one
mysterious but seemingly insignificant change before they would let NIST
accept it.  It wasn't until _decades_ later that the academics community
discovered differential cryptanalysis--and that the NSA's change had
made DES immune to it, whereas Lucifer wasn't.  IOW, they chose to fix
DES so it'd be harder for others to spy on us even though doing so made
it harder for them to spy on everyone else.

So, as long as the NSA is certifying things for _their_ use, I think we
can trust them--and they're smart enough to not bother saying something
is only good enough for _other_ people because anyone with a brain would
interpret that as meaning they've already broken it.

OTOH, this creates an interesting reverse attack: they can stop others
from using something they _haven't_ broken by pretending they have--and
could result in others switching to something they _have_ broken.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160134

"Dave Garland" wrote:

> It's not a program, but there's at least one website
> https://www.random.org/
> will provide a set of your very own random numbers. Their output has been 
> certified by a number of gaming-industry bodies, though not as far as they 
> know by the NSA.

I hate to be a nit-picker, but since the general subject is nit picking I 
will have to violate my ordinary reluctance.  The computer program is only 
used as a mechanism to capture information and distribute the numbers, the 
actual source of the numbers is "The randomness comes from atmospheric 
noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number". 
IOW a transducer of some sort hooked up as an input channel to a computer. 
It sounds to me like a resistor producing white noise, or snow as they 
called it on analog TVs. That's an unimpeachable source and I like it   But, 
again, it requires an airplane or planning ahead.

With this as a source, any and all correlations between the encoded message 
and the decoded message are lost forever. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160149

On 22-Feb-16 15:59, Osmium wrote:
> The computer program is only used as a mechanism to capture
> information and distribute the numbers, the actual source of the
> numbers is "The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for
> many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number". IOW a
> transducer of some sort hooked up as an input channel to a computer.
> It sounds to me like a resistor producing white noise, or snow as
> they called it on analog TVs. That's an unimpeachable source and I
> like it

That assumes the source of that noise is random.  Failing (so far) to
prove that a source is not random is not proof that it is random.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160150

On 2/22/2016 8:54 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 22-Feb-16 15:59, Osmium wrote:
>> The computer program is only used as a mechanism to capture
>> information and distribute the numbers, the actual source of the
>> numbers is "The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for
>> many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number". IOW a
>> transducer of some sort hooked up as an input channel to a computer.
>> It sounds to me like a resistor producing white noise, or snow as
>> they called it on analog TVs. That's an unimpeachable source and I
>> like it
>
> That assumes the source of that noise is random.  Failing (so far) to
> prove that a source is not random is not proof that it is random.
>

True. Unfortunately, AFAIK there is no way to prove numbers are, in 
fact, random, only to disprove it. Sources like atomic decay or 
thermal noise seem like good candidates, so long as you choose an 
appropriate (time, energy) window.

Farming the generation out to a third party (e.g. random.org) does 
introduce its own potential failure points, of course.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160179

In article <naghet$1r5$1@dont-email.me>,
 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:

> That assumes the source of that noise is random.  Failing (so far) to
> prove that a source is not random is not proof that it is random.

Especially when State level resources can be thrown against it.

 To terrify children with the image of hell,
 to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world?  
  Christopher Hitchens

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160166

In article <naftt5$4a9$1@dont-email.me>,
 Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:

> On 2/22/2016 12:00 PM, Osmium wrote:
> > "Scott Lurndal" wrote:
> >
> >> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
> >>> "Scott Lurndal" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> "Osmium" wrote:
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>> > But theory says you need a random number generator and, sadly,
> >>>>> RC4 is
> >>>>> > not
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>> random number generator.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Should be: But theory says you need a random number generator to
> >>>>> create a
> >>>>> one-time pad and, sadly, RC4 is not a random number generator.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> There's a random number generator in the CRC Math Handbook that would
> >>>> work, if a bit slowly.
> >>>
> >>> Well it's not in *my* copy of CRC :-)
> >>
> >> It's a table in the back.  You're supposed to take a pencil,
> >> close your eyes, and touch it to the page.  My copy dates from the
> >> mid-70's
> >> and is a box in the attic - it could have been in the chemical
> >> handbook instead.
> >
> > Oh, *that*. Yes, my CRC has that, but that's just a *table* of random
> > numbers not a *generator*. That's not suitable for a one time pad,
> > since every college graduate of a certain age in the US with a
> > technical degree has that book, so it doesn't meet the "one" criterion
> > for a one-time pad. The smiley was because I thought my copy was a
> > *lot* older than yours. It turns out it was just ... older.
> >
> > I actually looked on the net to try to find what I thought was a
> > program - didn't succeed, though.
> 
> It's not a program, but there's at least one website
> https://www.random.org/
> will provide a set of your very own random numbers. Their output has 
> been certified by a number of gaming-industry bodies, though not as 
> far as they know by the NSA.

Would you trust No Such Agency if they did certify it?!

 To terrify children with the image of hell,
 to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world?  
  Christopher Hitchens

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160168

"Walter Bushell" wrote:

> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/22/2016 12:00 PM, Osmium wrote:
>> > "Scott Lurndal" wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
>> >>> "Scott Lurndal" wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>> "Osmium" wrote:
>> >>>>> <snip>
>> >>>>> > But theory says you need a random number generator and, sadly,
>> >>>>> RC4 is
>> >>>>> > not
>> >>>>> a
>> >>>>>> random number generator.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Should be: But theory says you need a random number generator to
>> >>>>> create a
>> >>>>> one-time pad and, sadly, RC4 is not a random number generator.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> There's a random number generator in the CRC Math Handbook that 
>> >>>> would
>> >>>> work, if a bit slowly.
>> >>>
>> >>> Well it's not in *my* copy of CRC :-)
>> >>
>> >> It's a table in the back.  You're supposed to take a pencil,
>> >> close your eyes, and touch it to the page.  My copy dates from the
>> >> mid-70's
>> >> and is a box in the attic - it could have been in the chemical
>> >> handbook instead.
>> >
>> > Oh, *that*. Yes, my CRC has that, but that's just a *table* of random
>> > numbers not a *generator*. That's not suitable for a one time pad,
>> > since every college graduate of a certain age in the US with a
>> > technical degree has that book, so it doesn't meet the "one" criterion
>> > for a one-time pad. The smiley was because I thought my copy was a
>> > *lot* older than yours. It turns out it was just ... older.
>> >
>> > I actually looked on the net to try to find what I thought was a
>> > program - didn't succeed, though.
>>
>> It's not a program, but there's at least one website
>> https://www.random.org/
>> will provide a set of your very own random numbers. Their output has
>> been certified by a number of gaming-industry bodies, though not as
>> far as they know by the NSA.
>
> Would you trust No Such Agency if they did certify it?!

It occurs to me that this "certified" random number thing is much like the 
organic food movement.  You can't tell, by the end result, exactly *what* 
you have; you have to examine the chain of custody.  How long will it be 
till the Dollar Store will have a true random number generator with a USB 
port?

I don't know how feasible it is to "do" electronics anymore,  all the Radio 
Shack stores I had are gone. I think a one meg resistor is a good nucleus, 
despite Stephen's concerns.

Aside:  I wonder if Tesla got any money from the tooth brush charger people? 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web