On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 08:47:16AM +1000, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> Another whacky idea...
> 
> Given that there is One True Source of randomness to wit radioactive 

What makes you think that e.g. breakdown oin a reverse biased
Zener diode is any less "true" random? Or thermal noise in a
crappy CMOS circuit?

In fact, 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator#Physical_phenomena_with_quantum-random_properties
listens a lot of potential sources, some with a higher
rate and more private than others.

> emission, has anyone considered playing with old smoke detectors?
> 
> The ionising types are being phased out in favour of optical (at least in 
> Australia) so there must be heaps of them lying around.
> 
> I know - legislative requirements, HAZMAT etc, but it ought to make for a 
> good thought experiment.
_______________________________________________
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography

Reply via email to