111–120 of 157 posts
Some people say that, in theory, it could be cracked however, i tried and its impossible, modern computers are so complex and fast that it gives enough entropy.
That's approximately 100 lava lamps each at 100W = 10,000W = 10kW/h * 20.4 cents = $2.04/h * 24 = $48.96/day $1,489.20/month. Ignoring the fact that is very little money in Silicon Valley. Lava lamps consume a large amount of electricity in order to generate the heat they need. There are cheaper better ways to generate randomness, this is purely for spectacle clearly. It makes me nervous more than anything. If that's…
I might be prejudiced, but this looks like a big PR stunt/done for the cool factor kind of thing. Aren't there simpler/saner alternatives for getting good randomness?
Generating a random number by using microseconds as a seed is more than enough for practically every single case. It still hasn't been cracked or predicted. Some people say that, in theory, it could be cracked however, i tried and its impossible, modern computers are so complex and fast that it gives enough entropy.
The speed or complexity of computers is irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting a gamma ray beam? Or neutron beam? (You couldn't do an alpha particle beam - that's stopped by a sheet of paper... and the beta particle ray would have difficulty with the building construction). This then goes to the question of "where are you getting a focused gamma ray beam that has sufficient rate that you're able to modulate the period between two detection events?"
This depends on what the counter in question is measuring. If it's "background" radiation, where background is outside the counter, it should be pretty easy to bring your own foreground. If it's an internal source and it is properly shielded, this becomes much harder.
Lets say you've got some cesium that's creating 800 bits per section. That one (now that I go back and read it closely) is based on four events: E1 E2, E3 E4. If the time between E1 and E2 is less than the time between T3 and T4 - its a 0. If its greater, its 1.
Bringing in some other source wouldn't change that algorithm unless one could control the "when" to some degree so that the gigercounter detects your events with greater frequency than the other source... and at that point, you might as well unplug the gigercounter from the com port and feed in your own data.
This could be done with background radiation too - but that's many fewer events and so a lower rate of germination. The time between two events is random and will remain random even with more radioactivity in the area.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We're not the first ones to do this. Our LavaRand system was inspired by a similar system first proposed and built by Silicon Graphics and patented in 1996 (the patent has since expired). -- https://blog.cloudflare.com/randomness-101-lavarand-in-produ...
I know that people patent things for various reasons but would people truly expect the holder of that patent to litigate against another company using that method to ensure "more true" randomness in whatever application they were using? I, personally, imagine the patent holder would be glad to see others using their method to ensure true randomness so long as they were using the technology for anything other than evi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the article and the form in which it is exhibited is a PR stunt. However, that doesn't mean it's not practical in any capacity....if you locked this away in a room and never told anyone, it would still hold a utility for the company. Are there alternatives? Sure, but again that doesn't make it impractical. It's also a fairly novel way to explain to people that `random()` isn't truly random.
It is unlikely that it holds any utility, or that it is practical in any capacity.
I've built those kinds of science projects, and they are great for fun and for learning, but they are not practical or necessary in any production environment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is unlikely that it holds any utility, or that it is practical in any capacity.
I think you're confusing the medium with which this achieved versus it's utility. Surely you're not suggesting PRNG/DRBG isn't completely safe from hacking?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We're not the first ones to do this. Our LavaRand system was inspired by a similar system first proposed and built by Silicon Graphics and patented in 1996 (the patent has since expired). -- https://blog.cloudflare.com/randomness-101-lavarand-in-produ...
I know that people patent things for various reasons but would people truly expect the holder of that patent to litigate against another company using that method to ensure "more true" randomness in whatever application they were using? I, personally, imagine the patent holder would be glad to see others using their method to ensure true randomness so long as they were using the technology for anything other than evi…