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
