Re: Parallel Random Number Generator Library

Enzo Michelangeli (em@who.net)
Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:57:27 +0800

• Next message: John Kelsey: "Re: RC5/6 patents"
• Previous message: C Matthew Curtin: "Re: The Cost of Snakeoil (was Re: John Gilmore and the Great Internet Snake Drive)"
• In reply to: Robert Hettinga: "The Cost of Snakeoil (was Re: John Gilmore and the Great Internet Snake Drive)"

Absolutely true, and I think that most recent discussions were spinning
around this point. Montecarlo analysis only requires good statistical
properties, not difficulty of guessing the output. Perhaps, for sake of
clarity a different acronym should be used for cryptographic RNG: (e.g.,
UNG, Unguessable Number Generator).

Enzo

-----Original Message-----
From: Perry E. Metzger <perry@piermont.com>
To: lcs Mixmaster Remailer <mix@anon.lcs.mit.edu>
Cc: CodherPlunks@toad.com <CodherPlunks@toad.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: Parallel Random Number Generator Library

>
>The term "random number generator" does NOT imply CRYPTOGRAPHIC random
>number generator.
>
>What people want for monte carlo analysis and what they want for
>cryptographic work are NOT the same.

• Next message: John Kelsey: "Re: RC5/6 patents"
• Previous message: C Matthew Curtin: "Re: The Cost of Snakeoil (was Re: John Gilmore and the Great Internet Snake Drive)"
• In reply to: Robert Hettinga: "The Cost of Snakeoil (was Re: John Gilmore and the Great Internet Snake Drive)"