home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.crypt
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!uw-beaver!uw-coco!nwnexus!ken
- From: ken@halcyon.com (Ken Pizzini)
- Subject: Re: unpredictable random generators (terminology)
- Message-ID: <1992Nov19.215722.10380@nwnexus.WA.COM>
- Sender: sso@nwnexus.WA.COM (System Security Officer)
- Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
- References: <CH28NFT@minnie.zdv.uni-mainz.de>
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:57:22 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
- In article <CH28NFT@minnie.zdv.uni-mainz.de> pom@anke.imsd.uni-mainz.DE (Prof. Dr. Klaus Pommerening) writes:
- >In article <1992Nov12.171127.2162@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu>
- >
- >In the literature there is a certain confusion as to how call this sort
- >of (unpredictable) pseudo-random generators. Examples are:
- > - secure
- > - unpredictable
- > - cryptographically strong
- > - perfect
- >I prefer the latter term, because it is so short, and, more
- >important, the cryptographic strength implies that the generator
- >passes all efficient statistical tests -- truly perfect, isn't it?
-
- "Perfect" randomness suggests "true" randomness to me. In
- particular, the restriction to "efficient" statistical tests
- does not seem implied.
- "Cryptographically strong" is well defined and is actually
- descriptive of what is needed, but tends to be a mouthful to
- say and a bother to type.
- "Unpredictable" is fine, although explinations are sometimes
- needed.
- "Secure" has connotations that may color discussions.
-
- So all in all, I prefer "unpredictable" followed by
- "cryptographically strong", and the latter in cases
- where clarity is more important than convenience.
-
- --Ken Pizzini
-