RFC 1750: Randomness Recommendations for Security
This RFC has been replaced. Do not implement against it for new work — it was formally obsoleted by RFC 4086.
Current version: RFC 4086 — Randomness Requirements for Security
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
Choosing random quantities to foil a resourceful and motivated adversary is surprisingly difficult. This paper points out many pitfalls in using traditional pseudo-random number generation techniques for choosing such quantities. It recommends the use of truly random hardware techniques and shows that the existing hardware on many systems can be used for this purpose. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC1750
- Published
- December 1994
- Authors
- D. Eastlake 3rd; S. Crocker; J. Schiller
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- Legacy
- Area
- —
- Pages
- 30
- Also known as
- —
- Obsoleted by:
- RFC 4086
Topics
Referenced by
One later RFC formally updates or obsoletes part of this document.
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 1814Unique Addresses are GoodCurrent
June 1995
- RFC 2050Internet Registry IP Allocation GuidelinesObsoleted
November 1996
- RFC 1375Suggestion for New Classes of IP AddressesCurrent
October 1992
- RFC 2780IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related HeadersUpdated
March 2000
- RFC 3232Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by an On-line DatabaseCurrent
January 2002
- RFC 1881IPv6 Address Allocation ManagementCurrent
December 1995
- RFC 1917An Appeal to the Internet Community to Return Unused IP Networks (Prefixes) to the IANACurrent
February 1996
- RFC 2036Observations on the use of Components of the Class A Address Space within the InternetCurrent
October 1996
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?