Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:22:23 +0100 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: using /dev/random Message-ID: <20080923142223.0016c952@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <20080923133935.2523d8de@gumby.homeunix.com.> References: <18648.30321.369520.631459@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <BMEDLGAENEKCJFGODFOCAEOKCFAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> <20080923133935.2523d8de@gumby.homeunix.com.>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:39:35 +0100 RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:51:02 -0700 > "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote: > > If you really want to roll-your-own and not use these functions > > then you could read blocks from /dev/random and run > > a Chi-square and Monte Carlo test on each > > block and discard the ones that don't pass. > > > > I've done my experimenting with the ENT program: > > > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/random/ > > I'm sceptical about this, if Rijndael in counter-mode produced output > that's distinguishable from random numbers over a few thousand bytes > it would surely never have made it into the AES competition, let > alone win it. I tried it myself (the windows binary runs under wine), it looks OK to me, they look like normal statistical fluctuations. You need to worry of they are consistently low or high, or if you *never* get extreme values. Discarding the blocks that don't "pass" would produce less random numbers, not better.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080923142223.0016c952>