| 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