Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 10:58:22 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@render.com> To: =?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= <ache@nagual.ru> Cc: Terry Lambert <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: <Pine.BSF.3.95.961008105358.10204W-100000@minnow.render.com> In-Reply-To: <199610072104.BAA00680@nagual.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, [KOI8-R] Андрей Чернов wrote: > > > 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. This whole discussion is pointless and tiring to read. If you really care about seeding random() with repeatable values, use initstate(). It is probably trivial to figure out a set of values to give to initstate() for any value which you are currently giving to srandom(). Since the proposed change will *not* affect random() at all, you will get the exact same requence of numbers. -- Doug Rabson, Microsoft RenderMorphics Ltd. Mail: dfr@render.com Phone: +44 171 734 3761 FAX: +44 171 734 6426
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.961008105358.10204W-100000>