On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 10:46:17AM +0800, Enzo Michelangeli wrote:
> But that was precisely my initial position: that the insight on the
> internal state (which I saw, by definition, as the loss of entropy by the
> generator) that we gain from one bit of output is much smaller than one
> full bit.
William Allen Simpson wrote:
There are already other worthy comments in the thread(s).
This is a great post. One can't stress enough
that programmers need programming guidance,
not arcane information theoretic concepts.
We are using
computational devices, and therefore computational infeasibility
Wondering how in the world we got into this endless debate, I went back
and re-read the entire thread(s). I think that early comments were
predictive, where Ian Grigg wrote:
... Crypto is
such a small part of security that most all crypto people
move acros
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: entropy depletion (was: SSL/TLS passive sniffing)
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Enzo
> > Michelangeli
> > Sent:
>From: John Denker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Jan 5, 2005 2:06 PM
>To: Enzo Michelangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com
>Subject: Re: entropy depletion (was: SSL/TLS passive sniffing)
...
>You're letting your intuition about "usable ra
| > You're letting your intuition about "usable randomness" run roughshod
| > over the formal definition of entropy. Taking bits out of the PRNG
| > *does* reduce its entropy.
|
| By how much exactly? I'd say, _under the hypothesis that the one-way
| function can't be broken and other attacks fai
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:35:05PM +0800, Enzo Michelangeli wrote:
> By how much exactly? I'd say, _under the hypothesis that the one-way
> function can't be broken and other attacks fail_, exactly zero; in the
> real world, maybe a little more.
Unfortunately for your analysis, *entropy* assumes t
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Enzo
> Michelangeli
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 7:50 PM
>
> This "entropy depletion" issue keeps coming up every now and
> then, but I still don't understand how it is supposed to
> happen. If the PRNG uses a really non-i
- Original Message -
From: "John Denker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 3:06 AM
> Enzo Michelangeli wrote:
[...]
> > If the PRNG uses a
> > really non-invertible algorithm (or one invertible only
> > with intractable complexity), its output gives no insight
> > w
Enzo Michelangeli wrote:
>
> This "entropy depletion" issue keeps coming up every now and then, but I
> still don't understand how it is supposed to happen.
Then you're not paying attention.
> If the PRNG uses a
> really non-invertible algorithm (or one invertible only with intractable
> complexity
10 matches
Mail list logo
