Michael Hobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oops, my bad. I guess it's P3 *motherboards* that come with the random
number generator.
Some motherboards, apparently. Unfortunately, the i810 is the low end
thing with integrated everything. The vast majority (I assume) of MBs
are based on the BX
Michael Hobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any good idea? First prize: a bottle of something good. :-)
In C, I've sometimes added in the memory location of an arbitrary
Security through obscurity alert!
I believe that the P3 chips come with a noisy diode built-in,
specifically for
Fergus Henderson wrote:
On 10-May-2000, Sverker Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Relevance for Haskell would be that you wouldnt be able to fork a
program written in C into a protected environment (functional
sandbox?) and know that its result would depend only on its input
Sverker Nilsson wrote:
[True random input in CPU]
I hope this diode is only accessible from supervisor mode, because
otherwise we won't have as many provably deterministic user mode
programs as before.
Relevance for Haskell would be that you wouldnt be able to fork a
program written in C
Ketil Malde wrote:
Michael Hobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe that the P3 chips come with a noisy diode built-in,
specifically for the purpose of generating random numbers.
Apparently, the Intel i810 chipset also contains a hardware random
number generator. See
On Tue, 2 May 2000, Keith Wansbrough wrote:
Off-topic, I know, but even if this worked as I think you intend,
it would hardly be random and would certainly be unsuitable for use as a
nonce. Applying `mkStdGen' to the current time doesn't make it any more
random! You might as well use
Jan Skibinski writes:
Good point. Short of reading some truly random device
(perhaps ambient temperature fluctuation) this can be always
theoretically defeated. I can only make life more difficult
to the attacker by trying to outsmart him algoritmically
(Or to
Jan Skibinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any good idea? First prize: a bottle of something good. :-)
The easiest ought to simply have enough granularity in the
gettimeofday() or equivalent. Sure you can guess the approximate time
in hours or seconds, but can you guess it in micro- or
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Frank Atanassow wrote:
Jan Skibinski writes:
Any good idea? First prize: a bottle of something good. :-)
There is a thing known as an Entropy Gathering Demon (EGD).
From http://www.lothar.com/tech/crypto/ :
You have been nominated for the first prize,
Jan Skibinski wrote:
Any good idea? First prize: a bottle of something good. :-)
In C, I've sometimes added in the memory location of an arbitrary
variable, just for good measure. But that's not quite as secure in an
open source environment. (Maybe not even that secure in a closed
Michael Hobbs wrote:
I believe that the P3 chips come with a noisy diode built-in,
specifically for the purpose of generating random numbers. You might try
to find a way to access that little gizmo. (Assuming that you're running
on a P3.)
Interesting! Do you have any reference for this?
I
Jan writes:
Just out of curiosity: Is your compiler clever enough
to do just what you said? Another words, would this
attached code fail to produce random nonce string (
the idea apparently criticized by Erik, but I do not care
where this came from. It works
Facing a risk of being stomped all over again
without reason, I nevertheless post this question
to get to the bottom of things:
When can I safely cheat haskell compiler/interpreter
by pretending that I perform pure computations,
when in fact they
Hi Jan,
When can I safely cheat haskell compiler/interpreter
by pretending that I perform pure computations,
when in fact they are not?
If the computation is not pure, you cannot pretend it is.
Here is a real example,
from my Md5Digest module which works fine
Jan Skibinski writes:
When can I safely cheat haskell compiler/interpreter
by pretending that I perform pure computations,
when in fact they are not? Here is a real example,
from my Md5Digest module which works fine in Hugs:
I don't understand what is impure about the
Jan Skibinski wrote:
digest :: String - String
digest string
= unsafePerformIO (
marshall_string_ string = \x1 -
prim_Md5Digest_digest x1 = \x2 -
unmarshall_string_ x2 = \x3 -
return x3
On 28-Apr-2000, Jan Skibinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When can I safely cheat haskell compiler/interpreter
by pretending that I perform pure computations,
when in fact they are not?
That depends on what degree of safety and portability you want.
If you want the greatest
On 28-Apr-2000, Frank Atanassow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jan Skibinski writes:
When can I safely cheat haskell compiler/interpreter
by pretending that I perform pure computations,
when in fact they are not? Here is a real example,
from my Md5Digest module which works fine
On 28-Apr-2000, Erik Meijer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Jan,
When can I safely cheat haskell compiler/interpreter
by pretending that I perform pure computations,
when in fact they are not?
If the computation is not pure, you cannot pretend it is.
Indeed. And if the
On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, Fergus Henderson wrote:
On 28-Apr-2000, Jan Skibinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When can I safely cheat haskell compiler/interpreter
by pretending that I perform pure computations,
when in fact they are not?
That depends on what degree of safety and
20 matches
Mail list logo
