1995-09-25 - Re: `Random’ seed.

Header Data

From: m5@dev.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)
To: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
Message Hash: 4693f974b33e032f3f849498d010ccbb773add049f4cbd2d241f6c3fb651bcb0
Message ID: <9509251324.AA23974@alpha>
Reply To: <9509251229.AA23816@alpha>
UTC Datetime: 1995-09-25 17:03:35 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 10:03:35 PDT

Raw message

From: m5@dev.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 10:03:35 PDT
To: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
Subject: Re: `Random' seed.
In-Reply-To: <9509251229.AA23816@alpha>
Message-ID: <9509251324.AA23974@alpha>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Rick Busdiecker writes:
 > I don't think that anyone has suggested otherwise.  I believe that
 > `clock skew' was the underlying source of randomness that Matt Blaze
 > mentioned in the message where I first saw that code.

Yes, looking at Matt's code I think I believe it.

 > I have no idea how reasonable it would be to use this approach in
 > Netscape, however if it were available as an option to generate, say
 > 300 bits, I'd personally be plenty willing to let it chew up five
 > minutes while I get my morning caffeine.

If you look at it that way (the software just generates new bits every
once-in-a-while, like daily) I guess I wouldn't mind.  I mean, heck,
it's not like there aren't 3 dozen other random daemons that pop up
and eat my CPU every now and then :-)  It'd only really be a problem
if it were used as an "operational" source of random bits.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Nobody's going to listen to you if you just | Mike McNally (m5@tivoli.com) |
| stand there and flap your arms like a fish. | Tivoli Systems, Austin TX    |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




Thread