On the "randomness" of DNS

Ben Laurie ben at links.org
Wed Jul 30 16:33:28 EDT 2008


Pierre-Evariste Dagand wrote:
>> I doubt you can get a large enough sample in any reasonable time.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
>>> I don't see the point of evaluating the quality of a random number
>>> generator by statistical tests.
>>  Which is entirely my point.
> 
> I fear I was not clear: I don't see what is wrong in evaluating the
> quality of a random number generator with (an extensive set of)
> statistical tests.

SHA-1(1), SHA-1(2), SHA-1(3), ... SHA-1(N) will look random, but clearly 
is not.

> For sure, it would be better if we could check the source code and
> match the implemented RNG against an already known RNG.
> 
> But, then, there is a "the chicken or the egg" problem: how would you
> ensure that a *new* RNG is a good source of "randomness" ? (it's not a
> rhetorical questions, I'm curious about other approaches).

By reviewing the algorithm and thinking hard.

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html           http://www.links.org/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com



More information about the cryptography mailing list