Re: (fwd) Re: BSD random() - any good (source included)

[Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.cs.hmc.edu>]

> Even in your rebuttal you use 'crypto-weak' implying they are crpypto
> related. I would appreciate a clarification on exactly what c-punks
> means by 'crypto related'....

"Crypto-weak" as opposed to "crypto-strong", cryptographically strong.
The guy was testing BSD random(), which I think is Yet Another Linear
Congruential Generator.  If you think an LC PRNG has cryptographic
relevance, you are gravely mistaken.

What's so hard about "crypto-related"?  If you can't think of any
relationship between the articles and cryptography (technical,
social, political, whatever), don't forward them.  If they had been
about cryptoanalysis of random(), that might be relevant, though
hardly ground-breaking.

> > you could post a pointer to sci.math, with the comment that you would be
> > happy to mail a copy to anyone who can't get the articles by other means.
>
> Yes, I could do that if I were so inclined. I am not.

So I see.  You're not willing to take it upon youself to mail copies
to people who can't otherwise get them, but you're happy to inflict
irrelevant material straight out of Knuth on people who could easily
get it themselves.  What *is* your rationale here?

> The bottem line is it was crypto related, was in reference to source code,
> and therefore fit the charter of this group.

Source code, yes.  Would you like to explain its relationship to crypto?

   Eli   ebrandt@hmc.edu