"Andrey A. Chernov" writes:
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 22:35:54 +0000, Mark Murray wrote:
> > 
> > I stand (somewhat) corrected. The random() code is _nasty_ complexity-wise.
> > Its not obvious how it works.
> > 
> > RC4 is 10-20 lines and clean with no magic numbers.
> 
> That's why randomness tests + mathematician to interpretate their results
> are needed to compare what we have now in random(3) with RC4. Easy and
> understandable code not always mean better results. We can't switch
> algorithms blindly, i.e. when their comparative quality remains unknown.

Actually, RC4 is well understood (and trusted). LCRNG's are considered
less good in comparison with cryptographic techniques. There is too much
to go wrong in them (as you have just discovered!) :-)

M
--
Mark Murray
iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to