Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 21:58:46 +0300 From: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: phk@freebsd.org Cc: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rand() is broken Message-ID: <20030202185846.GC66622@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <32212.1044211632@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <200302021836.h12Ia2aX049696@grimreaper.grondar.org> <32212.1044211632@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 19:47:12 +0100, phk@freebsd.org wrote: > In message <200302021836.h12Ia2aX049696@grimreaper.grondar.org>, Mark Murray wr > ites: > > >We have most of this, and RC4 can deliver. RC4's "licence" is > >fine. Call it "ArCFour" and there is no problem. The code is > >small, fast and repeatable, and meets conditions 1-4 above. > > There are some concerns about RC4's strength and predictability. Yes. That why I say we need to run some tests to compare RC4 distribution and other vital parameters with our current variant. The worst case will be if we replace good PRNG with bad. F.e. Knuth variant I already mention already proven as better than what we currently have, so don't have such problem as RC4-based PRNG probably have. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://ache.pp.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030202185846.GC66622>