Like maybe, what makes this cryptographically secure as opposed to the current best-of-breed PRNG, the Mersenne Twister.Look, no need to attack me for this, I'm a Mersenne Twister fan myself, but the authors of the MT themselves say in big blinking letters do not use for cryptographic purposes. Surely you must have read that?
I have no idea if the algorithm here is suitable. The author himself says it is. That is clearly a difference in positioning. I have no use for cryptographic purposes, so I don't feel the need to investigate. And now, fuck off.
In reply to Re^6: A better rand() for Win32
by bart
in thread A better rand() for Win32
by bitshiftleft
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |