[cryptography] Weak random data XOR good enough random data = better random data?
tom at ritter.vg
Mon Jul 28 15:47:44 EDT 2014
You're talking about two different things here.
As others have said, if you XOR good random with 'not very good but
non-malicious random' - you are unlikely to reduce the entropy. (And
as Seth said, if you XOR good random with malicious random (e.g. a
trojaned RDRAND instruction) you're in bad shape.)
But that's not what you asked.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Lodewijk andré de la porte
<l at odewijk.nl> wrote:
> That way the user can still verify
> that I didn't mess with the randomness, no MITM attacks can mess with the
> randomness, but given a good transport layer I can still supplement usually
> bad randomness.
What this _sounds like_ to me, is that you want to try and make a good
faith effort to users that you can't deduce the randomness their
browser generates. You ship them high quality RNG output, and then
generate some randomness (probably Math.random() based?) and the
output should be unguessable by you.
But it's not. Math.random()-based random is guessable in 2^X, to
varying degrees of X: maybe between 20 & 60? (I'm estimating off
recollections of papers from my head.) Math.random() seeded
algorithms are also guessable - once seeded an algorithm doesn't make
It sounds like what you want is a way to generate randomness a user
can trust, in a browser lacking crypto.getRandomValues. That's hard
to impossible - it's why crypto.getRandomValues was made. I believe
state of the art prior to crypto.gRV was using mouse movements and
other server-unpredictable events.
More information about the cryptography