[13227] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Randomness
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Onions)
Fri May 9 11:11:59 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
From: Paul Onions <paul_onions@siliconinfusion.com>
To: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 09:37:15 +0100
Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <3EBA64BD.7070008@algroup.co.uk>
On Thursday 08 May 2003 3:07 pm, Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> It was my intention, and perhaps I should make it clearer, that the only
> difference between insecureprng() and the other PRNGs is the source of
> entropy. Hence, it does not leak state any more than the rest do.
> Clearly if the insecureprng() uses a cryptographically weak algorithm
> then it cannot share state.
Oh okay. But a small doubt still remains - is a secure-PRNG still a
secure-PRNG when multiple instantiations are run in parallel and (at least
partially) sharing the same state information?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this question has been addressed
in the literature.
Regards,
Paul(o)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
