Timeline for Using a non cryptographic PRNG for randomized algorithms
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 5, 2017 at 13:29 | comment | added | Paul Uszak | As always with random numbers, it's all about the seed. Where does yours come from? | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 12:59 | answer | added | Thomas Pornin | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 12:52 | comment | added | CodesInChaos | Focus on choosing a fast CSPRNG implementation instead of working around the weaknesses of a bad PRNG. A good AES-128-CTR implementation on a recent desktop CPU will take about 1 CPU cycle per output byte. | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 10:21 | comment | added | Paul Uszak |
Do you realise that a Java Collections.shuffle() will randomly sort 10M integers using a secure randomness source within a few seconds? I don't think that random generators will be susceptible to timing attacks as they don't have data-dependent timing variations.
|
|
| S Jun 5, 2017 at 8:53 | history | suggested | CommunityBot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Secure generators don't take more than a second to complete, they are faster than a delay. The real issue is the cpu usage.
|
| Jun 5, 2017 at 3:17 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 5, 2017 at 8:53 | |||||
| Jun 5, 2017 at 2:57 | comment | added | poncho | So, a secure pseudorandom generator is slower than a forced delay of 1 second??? How slow do you think a CSRNG is? | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 2:37 | review | First posts | |||
| Jun 5, 2017 at 5:26 | |||||
| Jun 5, 2017 at 2:34 | history | asked | Hantum | CC BY-SA 3.0 |