Mark Murray wrote: > > That's why randomness tests + mathematician to interpretate their results > > are needed to compare what we have now in random(3) with RC4. Easy and > > understandable code not always mean better results. We can't switch > > algorithms blindly, i.e. when their comparative quality remains unknown. > > Actually, RC4 is well understood (and trusted). LCRNG's are considered > less good in comparison with cryptographic techniques. There is too much > to go wrong in them (as you have just discovered!) :-)
Donald Knuth seemed to like them well enough to publish the algorithm, as part of his discussion on randomness. He *didn't* publish RC4, in that same discussion. Cryptographic uses are a small percentage of the real-world use for PRNG's. If you are worried about cryptographic strength, then you shouldn't be using a libc function. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
