cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-12-11 - Re: IPG algorithim

Header Data

From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
To: wichita@cyberstation.net
Message Hash: 1972c920aff8e9359b5e716bb04bb437bc8c379458c0939dcd38e42860330d2a
Message ID: <199612111539.JAA00672@manifold.algebra.com>
Reply To: <Pine.BSI.3.95.961211034239.11832H-100000@citrine.cyberstation.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-11 15:42:45 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 07:42:45 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 07:42:45 -0800 (PST)
To: wichita@cyberstation.net
Subject: Re: IPG algorithim
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.95.961211034239.11832H-100000@citrine.cyberstation.net>
Message-ID: <199612111539.JAA00672@manifold.algebra.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


These are all good tests, BUT all they can tell you is a negative. Ie, 
if some tests fail, the RNG is certainly BAD. If they do not fail, we
still can't say that the RNG is good.

igor

wichita@cyberstation.net wrote:
> > 
> > You are also bringing a good point that Chi-squared tests are not
> > sufficient to make any conclusions about usefulness of this particular
> > pseudo random number generator.
> > 
> > 	- Igor.
> > 
> Chi Squares alone are not sufficient but we are only talking about the
> seed algorithm, and at our web sites, you will find Standard Deviations,
> Chi Squares, Delta ICs, autocorrelations, cross correlations, and a
> variety of other tests done on single characters, couplets - pairs,
> first differences, second differences, offset differences and all kinds of
> other tests. 
> 



	- Igor.

Thread