Re:How do computers generate random numbers?
by SilasX on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @03:09PM
(#28461682)
>Well, I'm referencing a "random" number generated in someone's head, not one generated by a CSPRNG.
What is that responding to? I thought I made the distinction between which one I was addressing pretty clear.
>But with regard to CSPRNGs, an implementation can have a flaw, and we have seen these sorts of things happen, a well known example is MD5, a hash function, which are similar in principle to PRNGs, was broken.
True, but my point was that the algorithm can itself be flawed, even if implemented correctly.
The point being, yes, you have Knightian uncertainty about the real factors that cause human-generated random numbers ... but you also have Knightian uncertainty about the existence of undiscovered flaws in your algorithm.
Yes, you're much less likely to run into the flaw if you're using a CSPRNG based on a high-entropy source, but in both cases it's true, or at least, impossible to rule out, that "there are biases in it, you just don't know there are."
Edit: And, FWIW, there aren't usable cryptosystems based on P=NP, which would actually be an improvement! Most are based on the far stronger assumption that certain "NP-intermediate" problems aren't feasibly solveable.
What is that responding to? I thought I made the distinction between which one I was addressing pretty clear.
>But with regard to CSPRNGs, an implementation can have a flaw, and we have seen these sorts of things happen, a well known example is MD5, a hash function, which are similar in principle to PRNGs, was broken.
True, but my point was that the algorithm can itself be flawed, even if implemented correctly.
The point being, yes, you have Knightian uncertainty about the real factors that cause human-generated random numbers ... but you also have Knightian uncertainty about the existence of undiscovered flaws in your algorithm.
Yes, you're much less likely to run into the flaw if you're using a CSPRNG based on a high-entropy source, but in both cases it's true, or at least, impossible to rule out, that "there are biases in it, you just don't know there are."
Edit: And, FWIW, there aren't usable cryptosystems based on P=NP, which would actually be an improvement! Most are based on the far stronger assumption that certain "NP-intermediate" problems aren't feasibly solveable.