Joseph Rushton Wakeling Posted in reply to Chris Cain



Permalink Reply

On Tuesday, 10 June 2014 at 06:53:46 UTC, Chris Cain wrote: > Awesome! I'll definitely check this out :) Thanks, that would be great! > Would there be any chance of additional contributions, such as an ISAAC RNG implementation, being accepted? I wouldn't go as far as to guarantee it for crypto purposes, but I've been messing around with an implementation recently and wouldn't mind porting it over to D (it's based on the public domain implementation found on this website: Would there be any chance of additional contributions, such as an ISAAC RNG implementation, being accepted? I wouldn't go as far as to guarantee it for crypto purposes, but I've been messing around with an implementation recently and wouldn't mind porting it over to D (it's based on the public domain implementation found on this website: http:// burtlebu rtle.net/ bob/rand/ isaacafa.html > So far the numbers it puts out appear to be pretty good from my observations, PLUS it's really fast for a large number of outputs (it costs a lot up-front, however). > > I also have a variation of "ISAAC+" as described by the paper here: > > The problem I have with "ISAAC+", though, is that the paper incorrectly describes the original ISAAC algorithm (Algorithm 1.1 fails to `xor a` at line 6) so it's unclear whether the paper actually solves a problem. Furthermore, I'd really prefer to keep that xor regardless (because it may have simply been an oversight but intended) so it's hard (I don't want to) to really call it "ISAAC+" since it is notably different than the paper's description. > > That said, it's a paper that comes up often enough in discussions about ISAAC that people suggest a desire for it. So far the numbers it puts out appear to be pretty good from my observations, PLUS it's really fast for a large number of outputs (it costs a lot up-front, however).I also have a variation of "ISAAC+" as described by the paper here: http:// eprint. iacr.org/ 2006/438.pdf The problem I have with "ISAAC+", though, is that the paper incorrectly describes the original ISAAC algorithm (Algorithm 1.1 fails to `xor a` at line 6) so it's unclear whether the paper actually solves a problem. Furthermore, I'd really prefer to keep that xor regardless (because it may have simply been an oversight but intended) so it's hard (I don't want to) to really call it "ISAAC+" since it is notably different than the paper's description.That said, it's a paper that comes up often enough in discussions about ISAAC that people suggest a desire for it.