Re: video as a source of public randomness
At 5:08 PM 11/3/95, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Timothy C. May writes:
I don't plan to belabor this point. Radioactive decay sources are certainly fine, though not likely to be purchased by most people.
Video digitzation equipment connected to TV tuners turned to dead air, your suggestion, are equally unlikely to be purchased by most ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ people. The geiger counters are very simple and cheap, too.
It is not correct to call this my "suggestion." I was responding to a previous post by Andrew Isaacson who said: "How useful would it be to use a video stream as a source of random input to something like /dev/random? I'm thinking along the lines of a Connectix QuickCam (sp?) or the cool videocam that comes with the Indy...." I was commenting on the sources of randomness, such as atmospheric RF variations, antenna configuration, tuner sensitivity, amplifier noise, etc., that would make prediction of snow bits very difficult. As to suggesting setting the tuner to dead air, this was just one facet of the discussion. I have no brief with any of the proposed schemes: nearly any are better than what we have now, if widely deployed and suitable used. --Tim May Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
[I understand that this isn't your suggestion...] Timothy C. May writes:
I was commenting on the sources of randomness, such as atmospheric RF variations, antenna configuration, tuner sensitivity, amplifier noise, etc., that would make prediction of snow bits very difficult.
I feel leery about these things if only because, as I've noted, trying to get these things "just right" and make sure that you are getting noise and not, say, high frequency hum from your own switching power supply, is very hard. You can set up a geiger counter if you are merely moderately competant. I don't know who I would trust to do analog stuff "just right". Do things a little wrong, and you merely have a huge search space and not an impossibly huge one -- the sort of toehold cryptanalysts want.
I have no brief with any of the proposed schemes: nearly any are better than what we have now, if widely deployed and suitable used.
Agreed. Perry
participants (2)
-
Perry E. Metzger -
tcmay@got.net