EXTERNAL LINK

Random numbers have been used for many thousands of years. Whether its flipping a coin or rolling a dice, the goal is to leave the end result up to random chance. Random number generators in a computer are similar theyre an attempt to achieve an unpredictable, random result.

Computers generate random number for everything from cryptography to video games and gambling. There are two categories of random numbers true random numbers and pseudorandom numbers and the difference is important for the security of encryption systems.

This topic has become more controversial recently, with many people questioning whether Intels built-in hardware random number generator chip is trustworthy. To understand why it might not be trustworthy, youll have to understand how random numbers are generated in the first place, and what theyre used for.

True Random Numbers

You may be wondering how a computer can actually generate a random number. Where does this randomness come from. If its just a piece of computer code, isnt it possible the numbers the computer generates could be predictable?

We generally group the random numbers computers generate into two types, depending on how theyre generated: True random numbers and pseudo-random numbers.

To generate a true random number, the computer measures some type of physical phenomenon that takes place outside of the computer. For example, the computer could measure the radioactive decay of an atom. According to quantum theory, theres no way to know for sure when radioactive decay will occur, so this is essentially pure randomness from the universe. An attacker wouldnt be able to predict when radioactive decay would occur, so they wouldnt know the random value.

For a more day-to-day example, the computer could rely on atmospheric noise or simply use the exact time you press keys on your keyboard as a source of unpredictable data, or entropy. For example, your computer might notice that you pressed a key at exactly 0.23423523 seconds after 2 p.m.. Grab enough of the specific times associated with these key presses and youll have a source of entropy you can use to generate a true random number. Youre not a predictable machine, so an attacker cant guess the precise moment when you press these keys. The dev random device on Linux, which generates random numbers, blocks and doesnt return a result until it gathers enough entropy to return a truly random number.

Pseudorandom Numbers

Pseudorandom numbers are an alternative to true random numbers. A computer could use a seed value and an algorithm to generate numbers that appear to be random, but that are in fact predictable. The computer doesnt gather any random data from the environment.

This isnt necessarily a bad thing in every situation. For example, if youre playing a video game, it doesnt really matter whether the events that occur in that game are caused by true random numbers or pseudorandom numbers. On the other hand, if youre using encryption, you dont want to use pseudorandom numbers that an attacker could guess.

For example, lets say an attacker knows the algorithm and seed value a pseudorandom number generator uses. And lets say an encryption algorithm gets a pseudorandom number from this algorithm and uses it to generate an encryption key without adding any additional randomness. If an attacker knows enough, they could work backwards and determine the pseudorandom number the encryption algorithm must have chosen in that case, breaking the encryption.

.................

The NSA and Intels Hardware Random Number Generator....

...................................................
To make things easier for developers and help generate secure random numbers, Intel chips include a hardware-based random number generator known as RdRand. This chip uses an entropy source on the processor and provides random numbers to software when the software requests them.

The problem here is that the random number generator is essentially a black box and we dont know whats going on inside it. If RdRand contained an NSA backdoor, the government would be able to break encryption keys that were generated with only data supplied by that random number generator.

This is a serious concern. In December 2013, FreeBSDs developers removed support for using RdRand directly as a source of randomness, saying they couldnt trust it. [Source] The output of the RdRand device would be fed into another algorithm that adds additional entropy, ensuring that any backdoors in the random number generator wouldnt matter. Linux already worked in this way, further randomizing the random data coming from RdRand so that it wouldnt be predictable even if there was a backdoor. [Source] In a recent AMA (Ask Me Anything) on Reddit, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich did not answer questions about these concerns. [Source]

Of course, this likely isnt just a problem with Intel chips. FreeBSDs developers called out Vias chips by name, too. This controversy shows why generating random numbers that are truly random and arent predictable is so important.

To generate true random numbers, random number generators gather entropy, or seemingly random data from the physical world around them. For random numbers that dont really need to be random, they may just use an algorithm and a seed value.

It is possible to hack into the Random Number Generators used in casinos and other fields. But, it is a difficult venture that even the best hackers find challenging.
With high-quality RNGs and security protocols, this possibility can be reduced to the minimum. Hence, developers should invest in these devices to ensure that they are secure.
Possible Defenses against Hacking of RNG
There are various measures that can be used to curb this vice. They are widely used by casinos and other places to ensure that they are completely safe and secure from attack.

The first one is to mix the randomly generated numbers using a stream cipher.

This works by changing the seed from time to time hence making it more difficult to predict. However, it has to be done in an appropriate manner that can be audited.
Secondly, the passwords to the systems should be developed by the authorized administrators. This makes them random and difficult to decipher compared to those generated by the system itself.

The casinos can also use tight encryption protocols which detail how they obtain the numbers. They should also provide a way of auditing the process of number generation in order to ensure that they are working properly.
The developer should also have total control of the random number generating hardware.
The source of the hardware should also not be very sure about its intended purpose. This can also present a breach of security.
Lastly, it is important to use high-quality RNGs and security systems.
These ones are nearly impossible to hack. They use top-class technology that makes them tamper-proof.

The cost of these quality RNGs is high, but the guarantee of safety and security is totally worth it.

19 starts 8 box 1s random..???.. EXTERNAL LINK

If every Greyhound Racing Board sacked 6 People to employ one Top IT Pro then everything would be simple transparent and we would all fully understand the processes in place.

Let's hope this gets sorted,it is more than obvious ,that there is a chronic problem with it...we all know it.

Malcolm Smart wrote:

26 starts 12 box 7s random..???... EXTERNAL LINK 19 starts 8 box 1s random..???.. EXTERNAL LINK

We actually hold bets every week for certain trainers to not receive boxes 4,5,6 when going to the track with 4-6 dogs at any given time

Another example is 3 Dogs in one race and they get 1,2,8
Thats been a beauty at wenty recently

They seriously think were that dumb

Blatant every week for months on end

Id like to stats on wenty park for most box 1,2 and 8 to a trainer
And Maitland most box 1s they dont even hide it up there ...... straight out box 1 for every maiden runner

Joke, random my arse

I'll guarantee nothing comes of it. You can hand pick any stats to suit your argument. "There are three kinds oflies:lies, damnedlies, andstatistics."

The one thing I can't prove though is ,that the computer system used to conduct our box draws,is flawed...that is for the IT people,along with GRNSW & GWIC to hopefully find & sought it out,but seriously,even Blind Freddy can see these abnormalities.

Paul Dicks wrote:

Unless you can provide some substantial conclusive and empirical evidence, this is just all conjecture. I'll guarantee nothing comes of it. You can hand pick any stats to suit your argument. "There are three kinds oflies:lies, damnedlies, andstatistics."

Well if it's so easy show us with examples and not just one offs. That's exactly my point

Smell the roses Paul.

I agree Daryl.

My only counter point to that would be wherever there are humans and money involved, will we ever see a computer generated random? I wonder and await with eagerness to see this true random status in racing.

And even if the box draws are random, I believe humans (graders) determine what races our dogs appear in before this allegedly "random" box draw. While there's still human intervention prior to box draws, nothing is assured.

So - when we have computer generated grading based on our rank/form/grade/time grade whatever you call it plus a computer generated box draw only then will I be convinced that this game isn't rigged.

The box draw is only one element in a complex web of facets.

If you pause and think about this once nominations close this in an ideal world is how it works...

1. Fields Close, computer generates list of grades and contenders
2. Computer generates box draws for each grade/eligible contender
3. Human schedules races (Race Manager Function)

So far as I can tell, the only thing required is a human to set eligible fields and nominations, then another one to schedule the races once fields have been built. I don't see much requirement for people to be involved in seeding dogs etc. There's so many grading functions in all jurisdictions that could be sent to a computer but they are not. I have no problem publicly stating this, it's not like any of the graders have done me any favours so I am happy to see them made redundant. There's not a single grading methodology that has been put to paper that can't be put into a computer so human intervention is irrelevant here in year 2021. It can only exist to support friends and family and connections. Otherwise it is redundant.

Grading as a function within the industry is still relevant - to set the rules, to amend them from time to time. But as an active component, no... on a daily basis. It's no longer required.

Humans and money. Meh.

Ohh,maybe you haven't finished looking at all of the abnormalities, i will save you the time...you won't stop finding them,so stop looking,it will drive you mad,trying to make sense of it,...unless you have come to the conclusion that a hell of a owners & trainers have already done.

There IS A PROBLEM with " Random " computer box draw software/hardware,but thankfully,as Mal posted,it is being looked over again by GWIC,after GRNSW asked them too,lets hope that they can find the problem,stay tuned Paul.

Paul Dicks wrote:

daryl barrett wrote: Conjecture you say Paul ?...Are you for real ?? I can guarantee you that I could go to any race meeting,any day of the week & provide you with conclusive proof that this has been,& still is happening,,& if anyone thinks,( that dogs & trainers who are drawing the same box for 3 or 4 starts in a row,then the next week draw a different box,then,for the following week or two after that,are back to drawing the same box,that they drew for 3 or 4 consecutive weeks prior to the different box draw for one week ),that this is just bad luck,are kidding themselves....& have their hand on dicks. The one thing I can't prove though is ,that the computer system used to conduct our box draws,is flawed...that is for the IT people,along with GRNSW & GWIC to hopefully find & sought it out,but seriously,even Blind Freddy can see these abnormalities. Paul Dicks wrote: Unless you can provide some substantial conclusive and empirical evidence, this is just all conjecture. I'll guarantee nothing comes of it. You can hand pick any status to suit your argument. "There are three kinds oflies:lies, damnedlies, andstatistics." Well if it's so easy show us with examples and not just one offs. That's exactly my point