Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 12:39:50 -0800 From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> To: Edward Brocklesby <ejb@lythe.org.uk> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rand() is broken Message-ID: <200302022039.PAA13951@warspite.cnchost.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 02 Feb 2003 20:18:11 GMT." <200302022018.h12KIC1a008066@a.smtp.serv.lythe.org.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> a restriction on the OS. If FreeBSD makes random2() using RC4 to avoid
> changing rand() or random(), will people then start relying on random2()'s
> behaviour, and when someone finds a problem in RC4, then the next will be
> random3()?
What I am suggesting is to leave random() as it is and
guarantee its behavior won't change and add cryto_random() or
whatever, and indicate it *may* change.
> Would you have a problem with changes in the TCP/IP stack changing the
> content of packets sent out when you connect(), if it breaks your TCP/IP
> simulations?
This is not a similar situation.
Note that it is rand() that is broken, not random() as can be
seen by modifying Kris Kennaways' test so I don't see why
Mark Murray was talking about changing it in the first place.
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
int i;
for(i = 1; i <= 1000; i++) {
srandom(i);
printf("%d: %d\n", i, random());
}
}
1: 1804289383
2: 1505335290
3: 1205554746
4: 1968078301
5: 590011675
6: 290852541
7: 1045618677
8: 757547896
9: 444454915
10: 1215069295
11: 1989311423
12: 1687063760
13: 1358590890
14: 2146406683
15: 762299093
16: 462648444
17: 1227918265
...
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200302022039.PAA13951>