Talk:Random number generator (device): Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(/dev/urandom) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::: Er. I was unclear. Clarification handy, though: [http://irclog.perlgeek.de/rosettacode/2011-01-11#i_3175701 http://irclog.perlgeek.de/rosettacode/2011-01-11#i_3175701] --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 15:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC) |
::: Er. I was unclear. Clarification handy, though: [http://irclog.perlgeek.de/rosettacode/2011-01-11#i_3175701 http://irclog.perlgeek.de/rosettacode/2011-01-11#i_3175701] --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 15:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::: OK: So let's say, it should involve real-world generated entropy during each step, and define the scope of this task to what is covered by the Wikipedia article. --[[User:Abu|Abu]] 15:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC) |
:::: OK: So let's say, it should involve real-world generated entropy during each step, and define the scope of this task to what is covered by the Wikipedia article. --[[User:Abu|Abu]] 15:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
in #pearl someone said: |
|||
> Whether /dev/urandom is good enough for cryptographic work is debated, though on most UNIX systems it is at least as good as the Win32 Crypto API. |
|||
that's also what came up on the summary i found on duck when searching for `kotlin dev/urandom`. |
|||
but is it really debated? or is this outdated? or was it ever true? |
|||
from what i've been researching on my free time since yesterday, both `/dev/random` and u are not only good enough, they're actively used for cryptographic work. and given windows is now linux, i highly doubt it would use any other resource for true randomness (plus windows have always been notoriously less secure than any *nix to begin with). |
|||
feels like a "global warming" debate, if john oliver knows what i mean. |