6 ms·
2/10 would not recommend for technical merit. 8/10 is nice if you want a handwavy human explanation of some rudimentary expectations in crypto - author spends
by aerioux 9y ago
2/10 would not recommend for technical merit.
8/10 is nice if you want a handwavy human explanation of some rudimentary expectations in crypto
- author spends a few pages thinking about randomness - we have formal definitions of a RNG/PRNG.
- author does basic statistical tests, these seem very unconcerned with actual randomness - i'm not sure what the point is
- author really shouldn't be writing about crypto randomness if they don't do crypto
+1 to higher comment saying reading TAOCP instead.
- krab 9y agoThe author specifically mentions he doesn't write about cryptography. > The idea of what constitutes a good RNG depends on how the RNG is applied. That is why, for example, a generator may be considered high-quality for simulation while being considered unacceptable for cryptography. This chapter looks at tests of statistical quality and does not address tests for cryptographical security.
- pvg 9y agoHe’s writing with the assumption you have a sufficiently good uniform PRNG. Then explains how to test whether the code you wrote to achieve a particular distribution does what you think it does.
- Fomite 9y ago"i'm not sure what the point is" - people use random numbers for things besides crypto.