Sometimes I read that a nonce has to be a random number but I disagree. A nonce just can't repeat itself. You could increase in by 1 every time if you are sure it would never repeat.
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
If you have many clients accessing a server then the clients can't really just increment by one because they wouldn't know which numbers have been sent. You could attempt to coordinate and enforce that their numbers don't intersect, but this is additional work.
In this case, I think a long, random nonce is very beneficial. Clients can just generate nonces without any worry about overlapping. The server only has to record and ensure the same nonce doesn't appear twice.
GUID's or UUID's work well for these scenarios because the statistical probability of collisions is so low. In addition some implementations of a GUID will be based off the MAC address, time, and some random bits. This ensures that
They are also easy to generate as most languages will already have an implementation you can use.
So I agree with your argument that nonces don't need to RANDOM, but they do need to be UNIQUE. And while auto incrementing may be just fine if there is a single client talking to a single server there are many scenarios where this is not practical.
There may be some particular scenarios where an unpredictable nonce is better than just a unique nonce.
For example suppose you have access to an oracle that can generate the correct response to an authentication request that involves a nonce, but you don't have real time access; in particular by the time you get the response from the oracle, the challenge will have expired.
If you can predict what the nonce is going to be (e.g. prev nonce + 1), then you can use the oracle to establish the correct response in advance, then run the protocol against the victim and have the response ready.
An example where this could be realistic is if your challenge-response protocol is cryptographically weak and can be brute-forced, but it takes a long time (e.g. days with the attacker's resources) to do the brute-forcing. An unpredictable nonce would have prevented the vulnerability from being exploitable.
Definition 10.9 in Chapter 10 of Handbook of Applied Cryptography.
Continuing on, there is some additional info that you might find interesting.
Yes, a nonce is a number not used more than once. In its purest sense there should be no other requirements than this, i.e. randomness or unpredictability should not be necessary.
However, in certain settings stronger requirements are put on the nonces; like for instance in the CBC-mode of operation for block ciphers the IV (nonce) needs to be unpredictable (a requirement, when not followed, actually have led to real-life problems in the SSL/TLS-protocol: Why is CBC with predictable IV considered insecure against CPA).
See also: What's is the main difference between a key, an IV and a nonce? for a more comprehensive discussion of the properties of nonces and IV's.