Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gibson Research Corporation's Ultra-High Entropy Pseudo-Random Number Generator

grc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 59 posts

Re: Gibson Research Corporation's Ultra-High Entropy Pseudo-Random Number Generator

#11

Post by tenebrisalietum »

jrm4 wrote: post #10

Can someone explain to me the value of this? Like, is there value in the "pseudo" that you don't get from a "real" one? Like, I'm thinking of e.g. the Cloudflare lava lamp thing, and like, isn't that better in every way?

Pure software can't actually generate mathematically-provable random numbers unless given purely random data to start with.

So pseudo removes total dependency on physical events.

Why you don't want to be dependent on physical events:

- You never know if physical events are truly random unless you test them. Your physical RNG source may be broken or compromised.

- A good strategy is to use multiple physical sources of randomness, and this can be any number of things, including modern CPUs with RDRAND (if you trust them), USB attached devices, sampling ADC noise on your sound card, timing network events, etc. Any/all of that has to be combined somehow anyway. Getting data from some of these may be slow.

- So if an operating system needs random numbers quickly, for SSL key generation, UUIDs, nonces, etc. it should use properly seeded pseduorandom numbers.

Re: Gibson Research Corporation's Ultra-High Entropy Pseudo-Random Number Generator

#12

Post by panax »

zinekeller wrote: post #3

Someone have claimed that this is broken: https://github.com/Sc00bz/break-uheprng The first criticism, while valid, is an anachronism as there wasn't Web Crypto when this RNG was written. The other criticisms are fully valid though and should at least make everyone do a double take whether this is fine for their needs or not.

It is snake oil crypto. It is not safe for cryptographic use. I didn't see them claim that it can be used for cryptographic use on OP's page but they do claim it is a CSPRNG in the header in their js implementation: https://www.grc.com/js/uheprng.js

>This is GRC's cryptographically strong PRNG (pseudo-random number generator)

Don't use it for security or crypto. A CSPRNG should not allow the internal state to be determined from observing the output. The hash function Mash() they use is not one-way and this break can reverse it. It does not provide prediction resistance or backtracking resistance.

Re: Gibson Research Corporation's Ultra-High Entropy Pseudo-Random Number Generator

#13

Post by Iwan-Zotow »

contravariant wrote: post #4

Something about using a PRNG with a large internal state just to generate an output in a large space of possibilities feels wrong to me. If you have enough entropy to fill a high entropy RNG, why not use all that entropy to generate the output in the first place? Also I'm curious how they generate the latin squares, their claims require a uniform distribution of some kind, which is interesting.

> If you have enough entropy to fill a high entropy RNG, why not use all that entropy to generate the output in the first place?

Problem is the entropy generation rate. PRNG even with large space typically is running at 10 or better Gbit/sec. PCG with 256/64bit could generate decent numbers at 50Gbit/sec

Re: Gibson Research Corporation's Ultra-High Entropy Pseudo-Random Number Generator

#14

Post by ddulaney »

ttctciyf wrote: post #2

> Latin Squares are ‘n’x‘n’ grids containing exactly one of each of ‘n’ symbols in every horizontal row and vertical column [...] > Although mathematicians have been unable to determine how many different 26x26 [Latin] Squares can be created, they have been able to determine that the number is at least 9.337 x 10^426, or approximately 2^1418 Seems surprising that the number hasn't been calculated exactly. I'd have gu…

It’s mechanically solvable but not in any practical timescale. A naive approach would be to check every square with no repeats in the rows, which requires (26!)^26 attempts, or roughly 5e691. Obviously you can improve that by exploiting symmetry, shifts, etc, but that only gets you a few orders of magnitude. There are much cleverer techniques, but when your baseline is so ludicrously impossible you need a real breakthrough to make any progress.

Re: Gibson Research Corporation's Ultra-High Entropy Pseudo-Random Number Generator

#15

Post by ChrisSD »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #11
jrm4 wrote: post #10

Can someone explain to me the value of this? Like, is there value in the "pseudo" that you don't get from a "real" one? Like, I'm thinking of e.g. the Cloudflare lava lamp thing, and like, isn't that better in every way?

Pure software can't actually generate mathematically-provable random numbers unless given purely random data to start with. So pseudo removes total dependency on physical events. Why you don't want to be dependent on physical events: - You never know if physical events are truly random unless you test them. Your physical RNG source may be broken or compromised. - A good strategy is to use multiple physical sources of…

I'd also emphasise that fortunately most modern cryptography (outside of one time pads) does not rely on truly random numbers. So long as the sequence is unpredictable enough it's fine (i.e. you can't use known values to more reliably guess unknown values).

The PRNG in the linked page isn't very good but in general PRNGs are super useful in the real world even if they aren't truly random, just so long as they have some source of entropy to occasionally mix into the PRNG.

Re: Gibson Research Corporation's Ultra-High Entropy Pseudo-Random Number Generator

#17

Post by heleninboodler »

daniel-s wrote: post #6
medimikka wrote: post #5

If the maker of ShieldsUp! claims anything, I am deeply, deeply, unconvinced.

What's wrong with Shieldsup? My experience is that it works perfectly fine.

I don't know if there's anything wrong with Sheildsup (other than my recollection of it being a pretty run of the mill tool for reporting open ports), but the guy who makes Shieldsup is, in my opinion, basically a charlatan. He writes loads and loads of technical-sounding blather on his website that is very transparently designed to make him look like an expert on security to people who don't know any better. He's made a career out of selling tools people don't need but which are hyped up to make them sound critically important.

Here's an example of some hype I just found about a device he "invented" that is supposed to really put home routers through their paces, because he's the only one looking out for us. [1] Of course, it maybe doesn't exist, and his claims of what it's going to do sound far-fetched and misguided, but it sure does seem aimed to make him sound like a real security expert. Not sure if he ever made any claims about having evaluated any routers with it.

[1] https://www.grc.com/r&d/assimilator.htm

Re: Gibson Research Corporation's Ultra-High Entropy Pseudo-Random Number Generator

#18

Post by ay »

heleninboodler wrote: post #17
daniel-s wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with Shieldsup? My experience is that it works perfectly fine.

I don't know if there's anything wrong with Sheildsup (other than my recollection of it being a pretty run of the mill tool for reporting open ports), but the guy who makes Shieldsup is, in my opinion, basically a charlatan. He writes loads and loads of technical-sounding blather on his website that is very transparently designed to make him look like an expert on security to people who don't know any better. He's ma…

FWIW, he’s been at it for about 20 years.

Re: Gibson Research Corporation's Ultra-High Entropy Pseudo-Random Number Generator

#20

Post by icecube123 »

heleninboodler wrote: post #17
daniel-s wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with Shieldsup? My experience is that it works perfectly fine.

I don't know if there's anything wrong with Sheildsup (other than my recollection of it being a pretty run of the mill tool for reporting open ports), but the guy who makes Shieldsup is, in my opinion, basically a charlatan. He writes loads and loads of technical-sounding blather on his website that is very transparently designed to make him look like an expert on security to people who don't know any better. He's ma…

Thats over 20 years old. Its not worth mentioning in this discussion.

He only sells one product, Spin-Rite which actually works pretty well for its purpose, tho it’s becoming less important as we move more towards SSD.

It sounds like you’re spreading misinformation just for the hell of it.

Post reply on HN