<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 1:41 PM Salz, Rich via cryptography <<a href="mailto:cryptography@metzdowd.com">cryptography@metzdowd.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
>     <a href="https://www.developer.com/tech/article.php/10923_616221_3/How-We-Learned-to-Cheat-at-Online-Poker-A-Study-in-Software-Security.htm" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.developer.com/tech/article.php/10923_616221_3/How-We-Learned-to-Cheat-at-Online-Poker-A-Study-in-Software-Security.htm</a><br>
<br>
That article is nearly 20 years old.  Sheesh.  Ignore it.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>History repeats itself. <a href="https://www.wired.com/2017/02/russians-engineer-brilliant-slot-machine-cheat-casinos-no-fix/">https://www.wired.com/2017/02/russians-engineer-brilliant-slot-machine-cheat-casinos-no-fix/</a></div><div><br></div><div>This happened 6 years ago, but it took regulatory changes to get the gaming industry to update their random number generators. Updating the RNG triggers an expensive review by the labs that do the analysis and testing of the games, so the industry was resistant to changing things.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm sure there are still plenty of clueless applications of insecure random number generators around.</div><div><br></div></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Gé<br></div></div></div></div></div></div>