Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 01:04:58 +0400 (MSD) From: "=?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?=" (Andrey A. Chernov) <ache@nagual.ru> To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert) Cc: terry@lambert.org, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org, bde@zeta.org.au Subject: Re: I plan to change random() for -current (was Re: rand() and random()) Message-ID: <199610072104.BAA00680@nagual.ru> In-Reply-To: <199610072044.NAA14940@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at "Oct 7, 96 01:44:14 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Current random() code is joke from mathematical point of view (but not from > > ANSI/ISO standards). It is why it needs fixing. > > All pseudo-random algoritms are cryptographically weak (as others have > already pointed out). The only justification I've seen so far is the > GIMP code, and it's a weak justification (you want me to carry around > my own random generator, therefore I want the GIMP people to do the same). I tired to repeat that I not consider possible weakness of random() at this point and do not attempt to make it better cryptographically or make it better random distributed. I only try to make seeding idea meaningful, because current implementation makes seeding practically useless. -- Andrey A. Chernov <ache@nagual.ru> http://www.nagual.ru/~ache/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610072104.BAA00680>