From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 15:07:33 +0800
To: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: why compression doesn't perfectly even out entropy
In-Reply-To: <4l660q$167@joseph.cs.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <199604182325.TAA08657@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



David Wagner writes:
> Therefore, I suggest making a *copy* of the input noise stream,
> running it through Jon Wienke's "this shouldn't happen" filter, and
> feeding the result to some entropy estimator.  When the entropy
> estimator says "I've got 1000 bits of entropy", I stop crunching.
> 
> This is conservative design, folks.  Using Wienke's filter in this manner
> can't be any weaker than not using it at all. (agreed?)

Unfortunately, I think his filter puts too high a bound on the
entropy. Put it this way: I think he's only giving you an upper
bound. Furthermore, he's using his technique because he's using
spinners as RNGs, which I have a substantial fear of.

However, you are correct that this mechanism is no worse than not
using it at all. However, it doesn't substitute for doing a thorough
systems analysis to try to figure out how much entropy there actually
is in your source.

Thus, to summarize, yes, I agree with your strict statement that using
the filter this way is not weaker than not using it at all, but I'm
not sure it is worthwhile in this case because it isn't sufficient.

> Applying Wienke's filter to the random noise stream, to the input to
> the hash function, or to the output to the hash function, is clearly
> a bad idea.

Agreed.

> (The mathematician says "clearly", knowing full well that, unfortunately,
> some small part of the audience probably doesn't get it... <sigh>)

Sad but true.

Perry