> "Jerome" == Jerome Peace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jerome> So what do you suggest to solve the problem?
Use the code from the Crypto team. If you want that included in the core,
make sure it has an MIT license, and submit it as a bug/change-request.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge
lieve you might be right an the PRNG stuff.
--- On Tue, 8/5/08, Randal L. Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Randal L. Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Newbies] Re: Tim's Fix for LargeIntger>>AtRandom
> To: "Jerome
The Cryptography Team implemented a completely different generator,
but I can't get the packages to load in 3.10.2 to look at in detail,
and it's been a couple of years since I last dinked around with it.
-- T
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Randal L. Schwartz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "J
> "Jerome" == Jerome Peace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jerome> The objection Randal raised is that now it is using too many.
Jerome> That's IMO a red herring.
No, it's not. Multiple calls to a PRNG generate correlated numbers,
which can be used for an attack.
You need to use a PRNG that in
[Newbies] Re: Tim's Fix for LargeIntger>>AtRandom
was: [Newbies] Re: What's wrong with this statement?
***
>Cerebus cerebus2 at gmail.com
>Tue Aug 5 00:31:42 UTC 2008
>
>Interestingly, UUIDGenerator creates 16 bytes of random using Random
>one bit at a time.
Interestingly, UUIDGenerator creates 16 bytes of random using Random
one bit at a time.
I suspect there are entropy issues all through the image.
-- Tim
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Jerome Peace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Re: Tim's Fix for LargeIntger>>AtRandom
> was: [Newbies] Re: What's w
Re: Tim's Fix for LargeIntger>>AtRandom
was: [Newbies] Re: What's wrong with this statement?
Hi Tim,
Glad you are working on a fix.
I looked at your first pass.
It looks like it would work but maybe eat performance.
As Randal mentioned it goes thru Randoms
siz and a half times faster than n
