Other Directory Sites: SeekWonder | Directory Owners Forum
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:18:25
Jim Gillogly (jim@acm.org)
Wed, 03 Feb 1999 13:22:37 -0800
bram writes:
>On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Jim Gillogly wrote:
>> However, I agree that a CSPRNG would be dominate either LC or GFSR if
>> it's equally fast: anything bad for Monte Carlo is worse for crypto.
>
> One of the advantages of a strict PRNG is that you can make it spit out
> the exact same output multiple times. Applications where that is
> beneficial (for example, simulations which have no security needs) can
> actually be hurt by using a CSPRNG.
Did I use the terminology wrong? By CSPRNG I meant "cryptographic
strength PSEUDO random number generator", as opposed to a true
hardware random number generator (TRNG). I agree that true random
number generators are problematical for debugging simulations.
However, they can be useful to seed your CSPRNG if you're careful
to print out the new random number each time you re-seed it, so you
can duplicate the run for debugging.
In short, we appear to agree, even if we're using different terms.
-- Jim Gillogly 13 Solmath S.R. 1999, 21:18 12.19.5.16.8, 2 Lamat 1 Pax, Fourth Lord of Night
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:18:25