Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vqh76i$37eu$2@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Generate random passwords with your mouse ... :-)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 10:46:42 +0000
Organization: Fix this later
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <vqh76i$37eu$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vqaaim$1q8rg$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vqafqv$2jg8b$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqbnmd$21e9n$1@paganini.bofh.team>
 <vqgfvb$4dv$4@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
 <vqh28v$2sdf$1@stefan.eternal-september.org> <vqh5fe$37eu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqh62h$3est$1@stefan.eternal-september.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 11:46:42 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3b546f39434980c6916d6297e3602f25";
	logging-data="105950"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18YzPoubEtau69MJ4A7DYhh4nHvzDSwdVqf/tepIlFlYA=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Q9SbSyyq97/R3SGdtjdTpISo2ng=
In-Reply-To: <vqh62h$3est$1@stefan.eternal-september.org>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 2393

On 08/03/2025 10:27, Stefan Claas wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 08/03/2025 09:22, Stefan Claas wrote:
>>> Well, the mouse coordinates are not the only entropy source.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> Similarly, you can go to the trouble of travelling a hundred miles to
>> the coast to spit in the ocean to make it deeper.
>>
>> But if you don't bother, fear not because the ocean has other sources of
>> water.
>>
> 
> Well, as another solution ... Have you checked out my latest thread:

I saw it.

> Subject: lun - Lucky Number? Maybe this is something for you, or others,
> who prefer the command line, without using your mouse. It generates only
> strings of 20 random digits, but it's entropy should be good enough too.

I'm curious. Presumably you think that the entropy from 
/dev/random is *not* good enough? So in what specific ways are 
your bits an improvement?

FYI:

https://codebrowser.dev/glibc/glibc/stdlib/random.c.html

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within