Hello Ariela, > 2. You're right! I actually hadn't thought about that! Guess I had a hard time > not conflating "unique and non-repeatable" with random numbers... would a > timestamp be a better (but probably still not ideal) approach?
No, timestamps may repeat if taken quickly enough. Another issue is that in a distributed system you must now guarantee that all participants have synchronized clocks... A particularly elegant approach is to generate random bytes once (much like a secret key is generated once), then increment them for each consecutive encryption operation (much like the CTR mode works). For example RFC7523 uses the following nonces in appendix A: BBAA99887766554433221100 BBAA99887766554433221101 BBAA99887766554433221102 ... BBAA9988776655443322110F Vasilij
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
