From: Raphael Couturier Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 10:10:06 +0000 (+0200) Subject: modif X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/prng_gpu.git/commitdiff_plain/1f0b05d254ec49ab18b7426d66773cb17328a7ce?ds=inline modif --- diff --git a/reponse.tex b/reponse.tex index 5a762c2..7835473 100644 --- a/reponse.tex +++ b/reponse.tex @@ -18,9 +18,9 @@ \bigskip \textit{The authors should include a summary of test measurements showing their method passes the test sets mentioned (NIST, Diehard, TestU01) instead of the one sentence saying it passed that is in section 1.} -\begin{color}{red} In section 1, we have added a small summary of test measurements performed with BigCrush of TestU01. -As other tests (NIST, Diehard, SmallCrush and Crush of TestU01 ) are deemed less selective, in this paper we did not use them. -\end{color} +In section 1, we have added a small summary of test measurements performed with BigCrush of TestU01. + + \bigskip @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ the time required to break it is astronomically large, making this attack comple impracticable: being cryptographically secure is not a question of key size. -\begin{color}{green} + Most of theoretical cryptographic definitions are somehow an extension of the notion of one-way function. Intuitively a one way function is a function easy to compute but which is practically impossible to @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ $f(y)\neq f(x)$. Informally, if a function is one-way, it means that every algorithm that can compute $x$ from $f(x)$ with a good probability requires a similar amount of time than the brute force attack. It is important to note that if the size of $x$ is small, then the brute force attack works in -practice. The theoretical security properties don't guaranty that the system +practice. The theoretical security properties do not guaranty that the system cannot be broken, it guaranty that if the keys are large enough, then the system still works (computing $f(x)$ can be done, even if $x$ is large), and cannot be broken in a reasonable time. The theoretical definition of a @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ secure PRNG is more technical than the one on one-way function but the ideas are the same: a cryptographically secured PRNG can be broken by a brute force prediction, but not in a reasonable time if the keys/seeds are large enough. -\end{color} + Nevertheless, new arguments have been added in several places of the revision of our paper, concerning more concrete and practical aspects of security, like the