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

Groups > sci.physics > #529050

Re: Better Randomness ? !

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/29/2015 08:24 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:
> excretum deletum
>
>> https://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits

So your idea is that if a process is unknown that makes it truly random? 
What if I'm dumb and don't know how a pseudorandom shift register works? 
Does that make it random to me? Apparently.

I suppose randomness where the mechanism is unknown like radioactive 
decay or cosmic noise is "better" in the sense that if nobody else knows 
the mechanism producing the numbers it makes your code harder to break, 
but it doesn't necessarily make the key more random.

Anyway, while we are on th subject, and interesting question is how to 
generate reasonably "random" numberstrings to use for encryption at a 
rapid rate. Consider if you will the "unbreakable" one time pad method 
using modern technology. It can be seen that such generates another 
question: How can one generate decently random number strings at a rate 
fast enough to say record a blu-ray disk filled with random digits at 
typical recording speeds? Not such a simple problem while maintaining a 
reasonable randomness in the string.

-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Better Randomness ? ! Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-27 22:41 -0700
  Re: Better Randomness ? ! Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2015-10-27 22:46 -0700
  Re: Better Randomness ? ! Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-28 06:50 +0000
    Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-28 17:34 +0000
    Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:48 -0400
      Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 18:53 +0000
        Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 14:08 -0700
          Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 22:36 +0000
            Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 15:14 -0800
  Re: Better Randomness ? ! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-28 14:33 +0000
    Re: Better Randomness ? ! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-28 09:36 -0500
      Re: Better Randomness ? ! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:56 -0400
    Re: Better Randomness ? ! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-10-28 10:46 -0400
    QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-28 08:28 -0700
      Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-10-28 11:48 -0400
        RDRAND has numerous problems. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-28 09:35 -0700
      Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-28 16:17 +0000
        QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-28 09:50 -0700
        Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-28 17:44 +0000
          Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-28 18:01 +0000
            Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-28 18:39 +0000
    Re: Better Randomness ? ! Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-10-29 19:38 +0100
      Re: Better Randomness ? ! Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-29 19:14 +0000
        Re: Better Randomness ? ! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-29 13:10 -0700
      Re: Better Randomness ? ! Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-29 21:36 +0000
        Re: Better Randomness ? ! noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 17:24 -0700
          Re: Better Randomness ? ! benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 21:55 -0400
            Re: Better Randomness ? ! Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 02:12 +0000
            Re: Better Randomness ? ! Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 02:18 +0000
  Re: Better Randomness ? ! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:45 -0400

csiph-web