Re: BitBox PRNG
From: Tom St Denis (tomstdenis_at_iahu.ca)
Date: 08/29/03
- Next message: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Help With PasswordSafe!!!"
- Previous message: Mark Wooding: "Re: Is triple DES in ECB mode secure?"
- In reply to: J. Campbell: "BitBox PRNG"
- Next in thread: Michael Amling: "Re: BitBox PRNG"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 20:48:48 GMT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
J. Campbell wrote:
<snip>
| And comments to Tom St. Denis:
Wow I'm famous for all the wrong reasons! Mother would be proud!
| 1) I realize that the world doesn't *need* another PRNG, that
| perfectly good ones exist, that you don't approve of people talking of
| such things on sci.crypt, and that I'm a idiot newbie for even
| posting, so you don't need to tell me any of this.
Wow you so totally missed the point. I don't "disapprove" of new ideas.
~ I disapprove of people who try to pander useless designs that they
themselves haven't thought of.
For example, I don't recall heckling Alice Silverberg during her
presentation of Torus-Based crypto. Or during Phil Rogways talk on his
chaining mode, etc.
If you have a well thought out and presented design even if it turned
out to be weak that would be a major accomplishment over the "look I
posted random C source code that mashes bits together so it must be secure".
So why didn't you analyze your design, write a formal proposal and then
post it here? If you need help writing a paper that would be more than
acceptable to ask here.
| 2) I'm not suggesting that this PRNG be used in any particular
| application where security is required, that it is "better" than any
| other particular PRNG, and I am not trying to win converts over to
| it's use.
Then why bother? If you don't want people to use it then???
Unless of course you are proposing new theory....
~ > 3) I post simply because this system is conceptually easy to
| understand, the underlying algorithm is so trivially simple, and yet,
| it produces a system that rapidly falls into great complexity even
| from the most simple starting contidion. As such, I thought it might
| be interesting to some here. I don't really care if it is
| uninteresting to you. If that's the case, please ignore it.
Then if it's so simple write a paper about it and present that, not
random C source code.
<snip>
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE/T7wlsP+tEsHHY0ARAgAUAJ4lYCeG9Hva/8N5oegsYc2ZLL4O5wCfSVzU
z+Ovqp3s3qcwKCUzOgCUtWI=
=mTgF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Next message: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Help With PasswordSafe!!!"
- Previous message: Mark Wooding: "Re: Is triple DES in ECB mode secure?"
- In reply to: J. Campbell: "BitBox PRNG"
- Next in thread: Michael Amling: "Re: BitBox PRNG"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
