Re: Good enough for crypto?
From: David Wagner (daw_at_taverner.cs.berkeley.edu)
Date: 11/29/03
- Next message: ChemiK: "Block diagrams"
- Previous message: Michael Brown: "Re: Signature length of DSA"
- In reply to: Scott Wilber: "Re: Good enough for crypto?"
- Next in thread: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Good enough for crypto?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 08:51:44 +0000 (UTC)
Scott Wilber wrote:
>"...An unbiased review of this generator by Robert Davies (see
>Resources) claims that it 'seems to be the only generator specifically
>designed for statistical purposes and where the manufacturer has made
>a real effort to understand the effect of bias and correlation on the
>numbers that are finally produced'."
Are you, by any chance, referring to the following document(s)?
http://www.robertnz.net/true_rng.html
http://www.robertnz.net/hwrng.htm
My feeling was that Davies' review was primarily interested in the
statistical properties, and wasn't looking as deeply as we would for
cryptographic applications. So, I wouldn't put too much weight on that
particular review, given what was written there. But, if you know more
details, I'd be very interested to hear them.
You can find links to many other hardware random genrators here:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~daw/rnd/index.html
(Warning: that list is not maintained, and some links may be broken.)
Any further technical analysis or other relevant material that ought
to belong on that page is welcomed.
- Next message: ChemiK: "Block diagrams"
- Previous message: Michael Brown: "Re: Signature length of DSA"
- In reply to: Scott Wilber: "Re: Good enough for crypto?"
- Next in thread: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Good enough for crypto?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|