Why the same scenarios?

unknown_username

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios?:

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios? : Well in my posts I was addressing a specific point that dealing with those large numbers isn't a problem, but yes I agree with you there. Pick 1 of 52, 1 of 51, 1 of 50 etc should in my mind do the trick... Can't see why not but then I have had quite a few 1664's.... lol  
Posted by NoseyBonk

Because the overall number is ridiculously small.

The computer can't choose (it can't think) it can only do what it is told. So we have to have a trigger to tell it which number to choose. Ideally that trigger would be random but that is impractical. So we have to find something that will do that. 

If we take the clock for instance and choose our cards from a deck of 52 it would run something like this. The clock has a fixed number of milliseconds in any day. Each millisecond would relate to a card. So he 52 cards would be rotating over and over as the clock progressed through the day. It would take a matter of a few hours before the allocation of seconds to cards was worked out. If a more sophisticated form of trigger were used it would delay the inevitable but not prevent it. The sample size of 52 cards is minute - the actual case in question had 4 billion sequences and was timed to the clock and was broken in a matter of a few days.

How many bottles you had nosey )

NoseyBonk

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios?:

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios? : Because the overall number is ridiculously small. The computer can't choose (it can't think) it can only do what it is told. So we have to have a trigger to tell it which number to choose. Ideally that trigger would be random but that is impractical. So we have to find something that will do that.  If we take the clock for instance and choose our cards from a deck of 52 it would run something like this. The clock has a fixed number of milliseconds in any day. Each millisecond would relate to a card. So he 52 cards would be rotating over and over as the clock progressed through the day. It would take a matter of a few hours before the allocation of seconds to cards was worked out. If a more sophisticated form of trigger were used it would delay the inevitable but not prevent it. The sample size is minute.
Posted by elsadog

Sure thing, Alan. I know how the seeding works and agree it can be a weakness. At least these days we have access to better hardware sources for the seeding (white noise generators for example).

NoseyBonk

Errrr.... in 8-Bit binary 00000100 cans ;-)

I think I'll quit this discussion for now lol.
 

NoseyBonk

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios?:

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios? The sample size of 52 cards is minute - the actual case in question had 4 billion sequences and was timed to the clock and was broken in a matter of a few days. Posted by elsadog

In 'ma day' I'd use not only the time from the RTC but also CPU cycle counts from the Z80 R register for seeding in RNG or encryption routines. Couldn't imagine anything more psuedorandom than that .. Suppose these days the 12 year old hackers would have that sorted in seconds lol.

Right I'm off to The Shed

unknown_username

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios?:

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios? : Sure thing, Alan. I know how the seeding works and agree it can be a weakness. At least these days we have access to better hardware sources for the seeding (white noise generators for example).
Posted by NoseyBonk

Yes but you can't seed only 52 cards because the lowest number comes into play each time. In the actual case of it being cracked there are 86,400,000 milliseconds in a day. The rng held 4 billion sequences, but the number the hackers had to crack was only 86,400,000 which is a lot less than the 4 billion available sequences.  They use white noise now which is far superior but with only 52 sequences it would be hacked in no time at all. That is why ideally they would (if they could) use all possible shuffles of the deck ( 2²²⁶ ) combined with a sophisticated seed source such as white noise.