Re: Spinners and compression functions

[JonWienke@aol.com]

I received this via private email, and have been asked by the sender to post
to cpunks.

>Subj:	Re: Spinners and compression functions
>Date:	96-04-08 12:49:29 EDT
>From:	eli+@GS160.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
>Sender:	eli+@GS160.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
>To:	JonWienke@aol.com
>
>In article
><+cmu.andrew.internet.cypherpunks+clNRbLm00UfAE109Nf@andrew.cmu.edu> you
>write:
>>Run the spinner output through a PKZip type compression
>>function, and then seed a PRNG with the output from that.  This would
>provide
>>a means of gauging the amount of entropy that has been fed into the PRNG,
>>(count the bytes output from the compression function) which will allow the
>>program to disallow any output from the PRNG until a sufficient amount of
>>entropy has been fed into it.
>
>If pkzip were a perfect compressor (which doesn't exist), this would
>work well.  What you're doing is measuring entropy with respect to
>pkzip's model of the input language, which can be arbitrarily far off
>from the entropy you'd get with a more powerful model.  This means
>that an attacker who understands the video retrace (or whatever) can
>get an edge on you.  You really can't tell if data is random by
>looking at it -- for example, Nisan published a generator based on
>universal hash functions that provably passes all space-bounded tests,
>which most statistical tests are.
>
>Compressing the data probably won't hurt (*probably*, and assuming you
>take the header off!).  But Unix compress won't make data look
>statistically random, and I doubt pkzip will either.  Neither one will
>give you a useful estimate of the entropy in the data stream.  You
>have to guess that yourself, and then use a strong hash function to
>get it down to that point.
>
>-- 
>. Eli Brandt                                        usual disclaimers .
>. eli+@cs.cmu.edu                                  PGP key on request .
>. violation of 18 U.S.C. 1462:                                  "fuck".