Thinking more about the issue:
As said, the quality of a random number generator is more a matter of
taste than a subject to in-depth discussion (as nearly everything that
is influenced by the way infinity word).
Obviously a perfect random number generator (for integer numbers 0...n)
*needs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 22:50:05 +0200, Klaus Hartnegg (hartn...@gmx.de)
wrote about Re: [fpc-pascal] quality of FPC random (in
55d63d7d.6040...@gmx.de):
Am 14.08.2015 um 15:38 schrieb Xiangrong Fang:
I need to generate random numbers to be used as IV
http://www.2uo.de/myths-about-urandom/
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Am 14.08.2015 um 15:38 schrieb Xiangrong Fang:
I need to generate random numbers to be used as IV of block ciphers. My
question is: is FPC built-in PRNG good enough as comparing to /dev/urandom?
NO!!!
For crypto always use /dev/urandom
On the other hand, /dev/urandom in my impression is
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, Peter wrote:
On 17/08/15 09:05, Michael Schnell wrote:
Unfortunately Randomize (in Linux in System) just does
randseed:=longint(Fptime(nil));
if it would use /dev/urandom,
Perhaps that is worthy of a bug report?
Don't bother. It's just a default.
You can
Michael Schnell wrote:
On 08/14/2015 04:38 PM, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
It seeds itself with entropy from the intervals between LAN packets,
intervals between typed characters and so on.
Unfortunately Randomize (in Linux in System) just does
randseed:=longint(Fptime(nil));
if it would
On 17/08/15 09:05, Michael Schnell wrote:
Unfortunately Randomize (in Linux in System) just does
randseed:=longint(Fptime(nil));
if it would use /dev/urandom,
Perhaps that is worthy of a bug report?
___
fpc-pascal maillist -
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
In short: People interested in crypto grade randomness should use
specialized routines, not the built-ins provided by FPC.
So, why not provide an FPC CryptoRandom function, calling into /dev/urandom on UNIX and
CryptGenRandom
On 08/17/2015 11:15 AM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
In short: People interested in crypto grade randomness should use
specialized routines, not the built-ins provided by FPC.
+1
As said: random numbers are a matter if taste (or of the application)
e.g. :
I once did a project where we such a
Adriaan van Os wrote on Mon, 17 Aug 2015:
So, why not provide an FPC CryptoRandom function, calling into
/dev/urandom on UNIX and CryptGenRandom
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa379942(v=vs.85).aspx on
Windows ?
Proper cryptography requires much more than just unpredictable
On 08/14/2015 04:38 PM, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
It seeds itself with entropy from the intervals between LAN packets,
intervals between typed characters and so on.
Unfortunately Randomize (in Linux in System) just does
randseed:=longint(Fptime(nil));
if it would use /dev/urandom, the
On 08/14/2015 04:27 PM, Xiangrong Fang wrote:
Well, practically, how can I get totally unpredictable numbers?
Nothing is totally unpredictable :-)
I would set randseed via randseed and after this you can just use rand()
for at least 2 gig numbers without any perceptible predictability.
On 08/17/2015 10:14 AM, Michael Schnell wrote:
I would set randseed via randseed
Grrr. I would set randseed via /dev/urandom
-Michael
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
Xiangrong Fang wrote on Fri, 14 Aug 2015:
I need to generate random numbers to be used as IV of block ciphers. My
question is: is FPC built-in PRNG good enough as comparing to /dev/urandom?
No PRNG is suited for that purpose, because every PRNG is by
definition predictable and you need
Hi All,
I need to generate random numbers to be used as IV of block ciphers. My
question is: is FPC built-in PRNG good enough as comparing to /dev/urandom?
On the other hand, /dev/urandom in my impression is fairly slow, how is the
speed of Random() comparing to that?
Thanks!
Xiangrong
On 08/14/2015 03:47 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
My question is: is FPC built-in PRNG good enough as comparing to
/dev/urandom?
No PRNG is suited for that purpose, because every PRNG is by
definition predictable and you need unpredictable numbers for IVs.
How should /dev/urandom not be
Michael Schnell wrote:
On 08/14/2015 03:47 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
My question is: is FPC built-in PRNG good enough as comparing to
/dev/urandom?
No PRNG is suited for that purpose, because every PRNG is by
definition predictable and you need unpredictable numbers for IVs.
How should
2015-08-14 21:47 GMT+08:00 Jonas Maebe jonas.ma...@elis.ugent.be:
Xiangrong Fang wrote on Fri, 14 Aug 2015:
I need to generate random numbers to be used as IV of block ciphers. My
question is: is FPC built-in PRNG good enough as comparing to
/dev/urandom?
No PRNG is suited for that
Xiangrong Fang wrote on Fri, 14 Aug 2015:
2015-08-14 21:47 GMT+08:00 Jonas Maebe jonas.ma...@elis.ugent.be:
No PRNG is suited for that purpose, because every PRNG is by definition
predictable and you need unpredictable numbers for IVs.
​Well, practically, how can I get totally
19 matches
Mail list logo
