Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 13:20:01 +0300 From: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rand() is broken Message-ID: <20030204102001.GA89622@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20030204094659.GA87303@nagual.pp.ru> References: <20030202070644.GA9987@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20030202090422.GA59750@nagual.pp.ru> <20030203002639.GB44914@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <20030203100002.GA73386@nagual.pp.ru> <20030204054020.GA2447@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <20030204094659.GA87303@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 12:46:59 +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: > > So, if you define USE_WEAK_SEEDING and re-compile rand.c, you'll get even > worse results from your test. It means current variant is better then > previous. If you know even better algorithm wich pass restrictions above, > just tell and we consider switching to it. Here is result from your test for USE_WEAK_SEEDING, i.e. for old algorithm. As we can see, it even worse than current one. It means that returning to old algoritm as Kris means (maybe?) is not an option. 1 e b 8 5 2 f c 9 6 3 0 d a 7 4 1 e b 8 5 2 f c 9 6 3 0 d a 7 4 1 e b 8 5 2 f c 9 6 3 0 d a 7 4 1 e b 8 5 2 f c 9 6 3 0 d a 7 4 1 e b 8 5 2 f c 9 6 3 0 d a 7 4 1 e b 8 5 2 f c 9 6 3 0 d a 7 4 1 e b 8 5 2 f c 9 6 3 0 d a 7 4 1 e b 8 5 2 f c 9 6 3 0 d a 7 4 1 e b 8 5 2 f c 9 6 3 0 d a 7 4 1 e b 8 5 2 f c 9 6 3 0 d a 7 4 1 e b 8 5 2 f c 9 6 3 0 d a 7 4 1 e b 8 5 2 f c 9 6 3 0 d a 7 4 -- 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?20030204102001.GA89622>