Other Directory Sites: SeekWonder | Directory Owners Forum
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Fri Aug 21 1998 - 17:20:14 ADT
Cicero (cicero@redneck.efga.org)
9 Jul 1998 09:58:59 -0000
Perry Metzger wrote:
>"William H. Geiger III" writes:
>> I would have to see the math and some test data before I would feel
>> comfortable with this. There seems to be a big difference between using
>> the time between to hit to generate X bits and taking the 2 deltas between
>> 3 hits and then generating one bit of data from that.
>
>My big question is this: are there tools for taking a set of random
>numbers dispersed according to a non-uniform distribution, like a
>poisson or normal distribution, and turning them into a set of random
>numbers over a uniform distribution? Given such tools, timing
>intervals between the geiger counter ticks is probably safe --
>otherwise, it may skew the results subtly.
What do you see as the problems with:
1. Hash the data
2. Encrypt the data in CBC mode with the hash as key
If the hash and cipher are both strong, this should be good.
Is the concern over the entropy bottleneck caused the the small, fixed
output of the hash?
If so, then it would seem that one should:
1. Use the data as seed to a PRNG (pseudo random number generator)
2. Use the PRNG output (or xor it with the data, if you wish)
If the PRNG were strong and had variably sized input, this should be
good.
This procedure seems particularly well suited to producing the desired
output from the Geiger counter input. Among other things, it avoids
the need to "adjust" the data, a process fraught with peril.
Is the problem that you are not happy with the state of the art in
PRNGs? The plethora of constructions that abound in the current body
of standards might well inspire that response.
Cicero
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Fri Aug 21 1998 - 17:20:14 ADT