On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, David Howe wrote:
> > No it isn't. You -want- a RNG but you can't have one. Nobody
> > -wants- a PRNG, they -settle- for it.
> I think there is some confusion here - if you are using a PRNG as a stream
> cypher, the last thing in the world you want is for it to be truely random -
> you need to sync up two prngs in order to decrypt the message, and
> randomness would defeat that (I can see a case where you introduce a little
> randomness and use some redundant method to strip it out before encryption,
> but that's only a second layer of obscurity of little value if the
> mainstream crypto is borken.
You (and others I'm sure) seem to miss the point.
I am -not- saying that -all- applications -want- a RNG. Why?
Repeatability. One of the two factors that describe a PRNG.
-If- you have a application using a RNG then, unless you're willing to
break out of the NOT-AND-OR straight jacket then you're stuck with a PRNG.
You want a RNG but can't have one...
You folks can go back to sleep now.
--
____________________________________________________________________
The law is applied philosophy and a philosphical system is
only as valid as its first principles.
James Patrick Kelly - "Wildlife"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.open-forge.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
