Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >
> > Glenn Olander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > 5) The strength of the PRNG is largely irrelevant
> > >
> > > As a user, I wouldn't trust any solution which lacks a check for
> > > duplicate session id's, regardless of the strength of the PRNG.
> > This doesn't seem to me to be a plausible position in view
> > of the fact that all of our security mechanisms absolutely
> > depend on statistical uniqueness of randomly generated large
> > numbers.
> >
>
> These are 2 different points I think. If you randomly generate numbers
> between 1 and 1,000,000 you will, after a point in time, have
> duplicate numbers.
Yes, but if you randomly generate numbers between 1 and 2^128, you'll
have to generate roughly 2^64 random numbers to have a good chance of
getting a duplicate. Sure, over time you'll get a duplicate,
but in this context over time needs to be measured over a
time scale far in excess of the time scale that is interesting.
-Ekr
--
[Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
http://www.rtfm.com/
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
