Timeline for Why are PRNG in programming languages not cryptographically secure by default?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 29, 2018 at 22:08 | comment | added | supercat | @FutureSecurity: In many cases where seeds are supplied manually, having even a dozen different streams would be plenty. Obviously there are many cases that need more than 32767, and most implementations can handle four billion, but that's not even close to what would be needed for most security-related applications. | |
| Jun 29, 2018 at 21:50 | comment | added | Future Security | Even if each $2^{16}$ seeds resulted in statistically independent output streams, that's not enough bits for typical applications. What applications run fewer than 32 thousand (Or 65K) times? And you have to worry about seed collisions, something that actually becomes probable around a number of seeds generated on the magnitude of $2^{n/2}$ (for an n bit seed), not $2^{n-1}$ or $2^n$ seeds. | |
| Jun 29, 2018 at 21:01 | comment | added | Squeamish Ossifrage |
Cryptographic pseudorandom number generators can be used with fixed seeds too. In fact, because they are designed for interoperability in protocols over the internet between different types of computers, they are guaranteed to be reproducible, unlike calling, say, the standard library rand in C.
|
|
| Jun 29, 2018 at 20:35 | history | answered | supercat | CC BY-SA 4.0 |