[Python-ideas] Should our default random number generator be secure?
mal at egenix.com
Tue Sep 15 20:19:05 CEST 2015
On 15.09.2015 13:41, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:45 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> wrote:
>> On 15.09.2015 09:36, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>> [Using empirical tests to check RNGs]
>>> Obviously the thing the scientists worry about is a *strict* subset of
>>> what the cryptographers are worried about.
>> I think this explains why we cannot make ends meet:
>> A scientist wants to be able to *repeat* a simulation in exactly the
>> same way without having to store GBs of data (or send them to colleagues
>> to have them very the results).
>> Crypto RNGs cannot provide this feature per design.
>> What people designing PRNGs are after is to improve the statistical
>> properties of these PRNGs while still maintaining the repeatability
>> of the output.
>>> This is why it is silly to
>>> worry that a crypto RNG will cause problems for a scientific
>>> simulation. The cryptographers take the scientists' real goal -- the
>>> correctness of arbitrary programs like e.g. a monte carlo simulation
>>> -- *much* more seriously than the scientists themselves do. (This is
>>> because scientists need RNGs to do their real work, whereas for
>>> cryptographers RNGs are their real work.)
>> Yes, cryptographers are the better folks, understood. These arguments
>> are not really helpful. They are not even arguments.
> Err... I think we're arguing past each other. (Hint: I'm a scientist,
> not a cryptographer ;-).)
> My email was *only* trying to clear up the argument that keeps popping
> up about whether or not a cryptographic RNG could introduce bias in
> simulations etc., as compared to the allegedly-better-behaved Mersenne
> Twister. (As in e.g. your comment upthread that "[MT] is proven to be
> equidistributed which is a key property needed for it to be used as
> basis for other derived probability distributions".)
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
> This argument is
> incorrect -- equidistribution is not a guarantee that an RNG will
> produce good results when deriving other probability distributions,
> and in general cryptographic RNGs will produce as-or-better results
> than MT in terms of correctness of output. On this particular axis,
> using a cryptographic RNG is not at all dangerous.
You won't get me to agree on "statistical tests are better
than mathematical proofs", so let's call it a day :-)
> Obviously this is only one of the considerations in choosing an RNG;
> the quality of the randomness is totally orthogonal to considerations
> like determinism.
> (Cryptographers also have deterministic RNGs -- they call them "stream
> ciphers" -- and these will also meet or beat MT in any practically
> relevant test of correctness for the same reasons I outlined, despite
> not being provably equidistributed. Of course there are then yet other
> trade-offs like speed. But that's not really relevant to this thread,
> because no-one is proposing replacing MT as the standard deterministic
> RNG in Python; I'm just trying to be clear about how one judges the
> quality of randomness that an RNG produces.)
Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Sep 15 2015)
>>> Python Projects, Coaching and Consulting ... http://www.egenix.com/
>>> Python Database Interfaces ... http://products.egenix.com/
>>> Plone/Zope Database Interfaces ... http://zope.egenix.com/
2015-09-14: Released mxODBC Plone/Zope DA 2.2.3 http://egenix.com/go84
2015-09-18: PyCon UK 2015 ... 3 days to go
2015-09-26: Python Meeting Duesseldorf Sprint 2015 11 days to go
eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
More information about the Python-ideas