Timeline for Unpredictability vs randomness
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2017 at 7:26 | comment | added | dandavis | i've noticed timings are less deterministic the higher level you go... | |
| Apr 3, 2014 at 7:49 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackCrypto/status/451627522753835008 | ||
| Mar 7, 2014 at 7:21 | vote | accept | xxxxxxxxx | ||
| Mar 6, 2014 at 20:57 | comment | added | Seth | It apparently converges to something that passes a Chi Square test. Is every distribution that passes that test a uniform distribution? I doubt it. For example, consider the distribution created by choosing a random K and outputting K|AES(K, 0)|AES(K, 1), where | is concatenation. It's trivial to distinguish these outputs for random (since you're given K), but highly unlikely that a standard statistical test, such as Chi Square, will be able to do so. See the second paragraph of my answer. | |
| Mar 6, 2014 at 7:10 | comment | added | xxxxxxxxx | @Seth Thanks for the replies. I suspect (like you) that the bits are not independent, but then, why does iterating Von Neumann always converge to a random sequence after a small amount of iterations? Isn't it extracting the entropy in the samples? | |
| Mar 6, 2014 at 1:04 | comment | added | Seth | Since this is a crypto board, I answered the question from a crypto perspective. But from a practical security standpoint, I suspect your time might be better spent trying to find richer sources of entropy. (Also, and I suspect you are aware of this but just want to make sure, Van Neumann unbiasing only unbiases bits that are independent --- unlikely to be the case here.) | |
| Mar 6, 2014 at 0:16 | answer | added | Seth | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 5, 2014 at 20:29 | history | asked | xxxxxxxxx | CC BY-SA 3.0 |