[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator
From: |
Greg Wooledge |
Subject: |
Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator |
Date: |
Mon, 3 Dec 2018 12:35:51 -0500 |
User-agent: |
NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) |
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 05:31:18PM +0100, Ole Tange wrote:
> Luckily I did not just assume that Bash delivers high quality random
> numbers, but I read the source code, and then found that the quality
> was low. I do not think must users would do that.
You're correct. Most users would not have to read the source code to
know that the built-in PRNG in bash (or in libc, or in basically ANY
other standard thing) is of lower than cryptographic quality.
Most users already KNOW this.
- Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator, Ole Tange, 2018/12/02
- Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator, Eduardo Bustamante, 2018/12/02
- Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator, Chet Ramey, 2018/12/03
- Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator, Greg Wooledge, 2018/12/03
- Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator, Ole Tange, 2018/12/03
- Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator, Chet Ramey, 2018/12/03
- Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator, Ole Tange, 2018/12/15
- Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator, Eduardo Bustamante, 2018/12/16
- Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator, Ole Tange, 2018/12/28
- Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator, Chet Ramey, 2018/12/31
- Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator, Chet Ramey, 2018/12/17