Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

LavaRnd: A Open Source Project for Truly Random Numbers

Posted by Hemos on from the 1231232-hash-uyiuyiu1q2123 dept.

Phil Windley writes "Truly random numbers are crucial to good encryption. Most people have heard of Silicon Graphic's use of Lava Lamps to generate random numbers. There were some problems: it required special SGI hardware and software along with six lava lamps, and the solution wasn't portable. But the biggest drawback was that SGI patented the idea so it wasn't freely available. Now, some of the scientists behind the SGI random number system have create LavaRnd, an open source project for creating truly random numbers using inexpensive cameras, open source code, and inexpensive hardware. The system uses a saturated CCD in a light-tight can as a chaotic source to produce the seed. Software processes the result into truly random numbers in a variety of formats. The result is a random number that is crytographically sound, ranking at the top of its class in the NIST 800-22 Billion bit test. Its even portable, so the truly paranoid can take it with them when they travel."

5 of 549 comments (clear)

  1. First, by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...

    start with radioactive material... ...

    --
    ... hi bingo ...
  2. Study Chaos by tshak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nothing is truly random about a lava lamp, or even the fractals on a leaf. "Randomness" as we understand it has always been about complex order and large numbers. Meaning, it's too complex for us to see the pattern and the statistical possibility of numbers occuring in a measurable pattern over time is extremely low.

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  3. Arbitrary, not random by The+Famous+Brett+Wat · · Score: 3, Insightful
    which of the following isn't a random set of numbers

    Answer: none of them were random; all of them chosen by you off the top of your head. There are important mathematical differences between these two cases. What you have given is sets of "arbitrary" numbers, rather than "random" numbers.

    Now, if you'd asked which of the sets could be generated randomly, then the answer is all of them, given a generator function with the correct output range.

    --
    proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
  4. Re:Bizarre sequences of random numbers by MacJedi · · Score: 3, Insightful
    What always bothers me is when people want uniformly distributed random numbers. I know why its valuable but if you make sure that your numbers are uniformly distributed they aren't really random anymore.
    I'm guessing that this isn't exactly what you wanted to say and it just came out wrong, but why are uniformly distributed random numbers not random? True, you have knowledge about the distribution that the random numbers came from, but you still would never be able to predict the next number. And, bottom line, if you can't predict the next number IT REALLY IS RANDOM.

    /joeyo

    --
    2^5
  5. Re:Bizarre sequences of random numbers by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A number is not 'random'. There is no test you can apply to determine that 25 is random, while 44 is not. Randomness is not a property of individual numbers, it is a property of the number generator or source.

    So when people say 'a random number' they really mean 'a number drawn from a random source'.

    You're talking about Kolmogorov complexity, I think - the complexity of some data is the length of its shortest description. But even there you have to agree what language the description will be in. You could define a language where 18282822 is represented by the symbol 'A' and any other number is represented by itself.

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com