I would never use online banking, and I advise all my friends and
colleagues (particularly those who _aren't_ computer-security-geeks)
to avoid it.
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 05:51:11PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been using online banking for many years, both US and Germany.
The German P
| There's another definition of randomness I'm aware of, namely that the
| bits are derived from independent samples taken from some sample space
| based on some fixed probability distribution, but that doesn't seem
| relevant unless you're talking about a HWRNG. As another poster
| pointed out, t
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 09:24:04AM +, Ian G wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >it seems to me the question is how much liability do i expose myself to by
> >doing this, in return for what savings and convenience.
>
> That part I agree with, but this part:
>
> >i don't keep a lot of money
Kerry Thompson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
>>You know, I'd wonder how many people on this
>>list use or have used online banking.
>>
>>To start the ball rolling, I have not and won't.
>
>
> I do. Although, only from PCs that I trust such as my linux box at home.
> And I keep a close watch
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 02:21:02AM -0600, Travis H. wrote:
> On 12/4/05, Victor Duchovni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Wrong threat model. The OP asked whether the system generating random
> > numbers can prove them to have been "randomly" generating to a passive
> > observer.
>
> I didn't read
>Ok after making that change, and a few others. Selecting only odd numbers
>(which acts as a small seive) I'm not getting much useful information. It
>appears to be such that at 512 bits if it passes once it passes 128 times,
>and it appears to fail on average about 120-130 times, so the sieve
- Original Message -
From: "Sidney Markowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fermat's primality test vs. Miller-Rabin
Joseph Ashwood wrote:
Granted this is only a test of the
generation of 128 numbers, but I got 128 primes (based on 128 MR rounds).
That doesn't make sense, unless
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dan, maybe you should just keep less money in the bank.
i use online banking and financial services of almost every kind
(except bill presentment, because i like paper bills). i ccannot do
without it.
it seems to me the question is how much liability do i expose myself
On 12/4/05, Victor Duchovni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wrong threat model. The OP asked whether the system generating random
> numbers can prove them to have been "randomly" generating to a passive
> observer.
I didn't read it that way, but the question wasn't particularly
well-formed. I'm not s
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 05:51:11PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> | To start the ball rolling, I have not and won't.
> Until a couple of months ago, I avoided doing anything of this sort at all.
> Simple reasoning: If I know I never do any financial stuff on-line, I can
> safely delete any mes
Joseph Ashwood wrote:
> Granted this is only a test of the
> generation of 128 numbers, but I got 128 primes (based on 128 MR rounds).
That doesn't make sense, unless I'm misinterpreting what you are saying. Primes
aren't that common, are they?
I don't have time right now to look for a bug in y
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> You know, I'd wonder how many people on this
> list use or have used online banking.
>
> To start the ball rolling, I have not and won't.
I do. Although, only from PCs that I trust such as my linux box at home.
And I keep a close watch on my bank statements.
All things
12 matches
Mail list logo
