Prev: A scheme of dictionary coding of English words
Next: Cryptanalyis by Cloning Definitions (Badly) from Regular Words.
From: Phoenix on 2 Jul 2010 13:27
On 2 Jul, 16:44, MrD <mrdemean...(a)jackpot.invalid> wrote:


MrD

But don't seem to me so fast.

Compared to PRNGs is slow, or I am wrong?
From: MrD on 2 Jul 2010 14:03
Phoenix wrote:
> On 2 Jul, 16:44, MrD <mrdemean...(a)jackpot.invalid> wrote:
>
> But don't seem to me so fast.
>
> Compared to PRNGs is slow, or I am wrong?

Depends on the PRNG. But physical random number generators (TRNG) are
generally pretty slow, certainly compared to ordinary PRNGs. Rates of
more than a few Mbps are unusual. It's surprisingly difficult to extract
good-quality physical randomness.

Cryptographically-secure PRNGs often depend on computing secure hashes.
If you have hardware-assist for hash-computation, that method should be
pretty fast (how fast?)

I have no figures for any of this, it's off the top of my head; but (for
example):
"Contrary to existing products, Quantis produces random numbers at a
very high bite rate up to 16Mbps."
http://www.idquantique.com/true-random-number-generator/products-overview.html

"Capable of creating random numbers at rates of between 800K to 1600K
bits per second, the VIA PadLock RNG addresses the needs of security
applications requiring high bit rates that algorithmically increases the
quality (randomness) of the entropy produced, for example by applying
hashing algorithms to the output."
http://www.via.com.tw/en/initiatives/padlock/hardware.jsp#rng

By comparison with the (new) Intel device, both the VIA and Quantis
devices are dead slow, even though they are both bragging about their speed.

--
MrD.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: A scheme of dictionary coding of English words
Next: Cryptanalyis by Cloning Definitions (Badly) from Regular Words.