On 1 October 2010 14:43, silky <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 2:29 PM, David Burstin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > This article: > > > > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19520-random-numbers-created-out-of-nothing.html > > sounds interesting, but being Friday, I was wanting to hear the thoughts > of > > those who know much more about this kind of stuff than I do. (That means > > you, Silky et al) > > Yeah, I don't know much about this specifically. > > All I really know[2] is this implementation of a similar technology: > > http://www.idquantique.com/true-random-number-generator/products-overview.html > > But it's interesting to note[1], as with almost any cryptographic > system, the biggest issue is implementation-based attacks (i.e. side > channel attacks and the recent padding oracle). > > It's cool though, and I don't know enough about the physics of it to > really have any useful opinions. But it's probably interesting, from a > cryptography point of view, to wonder what is better: numbers from an > unknown source, or numbers from "known" sources with "known" seeds > that you can just combine in an unknown way. > > I'd probably only feel comfortable with it once I knew how it works, > so it's something to look into I suppose. Few relevant links: > - http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.3512 > - http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25355/?nlid=3170 > > >
> [1] http://www.physorg.com/news202139419.html > [2] From my presentation on QKD: > http://www.programmingbranch.com/presentations/ > Or there's the more achievable random numbers thru lava lamps http://www.lavarnd.org/what/how-it-works.html -- Meski "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills
