[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5404EA1E.8010205@ciphershed.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 17:50:22 -0400
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...hershed.org>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] friendly warning about randomness tests
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 09/01/2014 04:59 PM, Krisztián Pintér wrote:
>
> the diehard, testu01, dieharder, etc test suites are not
> cryptographic tools. failing these tests is a clear break, and at
> least calls for another postprocessing step (together with an
> assessment of actual entropy content of the raw output). however,
> passing such tests mean exactly nothing in crypto context.
>
Agreed. Failing the tests means you have a problem. Passing them
does not mean your hash function is secure. POMELO had failed earlier
when it had a bug, so that's why I reran it.
So, take your 32-bit MT SRNG. Now, generate data from it 7 times with
different random seeds, and do a non-linear combination of them (if
the last operator in the MT function was an ADD, do and XOR or
vise-versa). This is closer to what I'm seeing in POMELO.
Bill
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=9SpX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Powered by blists - more mailing lists