The situation for traditional RNG’s (not based on Kolmogorov–Anasov mixing) is well described by Knuth in. It turns out to be difficult to find an operational definition of randomness that can be used to measure the quality of a RNG, that is the degree of independence of the numbers in a given sequence, or to prove that they are indeed independent. The following code uses a statistical PRNG to create a URL for a receipt that remains active for some period of time after a purchase (DO NOT DO THIS).We are concerned here with pseudorandom number generators (RNG’s), in particular those of the highest quality. In general, if a PRNG algorithm is not advertised as being cryptographically secure, then it is probably a statistical PRNG and should not be used in security-sensitive contexts.
For a value to be cryptographically secure, it must be impossible or highly improbable for an attacker to distinguish between it and a truly random value. Cryptographic PRNGs address this problem by generating output that is more difficult to predict. Statistical PRNGs provide useful statistical properties, but their output is highly predictable and forms an easy to reproduce numeric stream that is unsuitable for use in cases where security depends on generated values being unpredictable. There are two types of PRNGs: statistical and cryptographic.
Pseudo-Random Number Generators (PRNGs) approximate randomness algorithmically, starting with a seed from which subsequent values are calculated. Insecure randomness errors occur when a function that can produce predictable values is used as a source of randomness in security-sensitive context.Ĭomputers are deterministic machines, and as such are unable to produce true randomness. Standard pseudo-random number generators cannot withstand cryptographic attacks.
0 kommentar(er)
