A Provably Secure True Random Number Generator with Built-In Tolerance to Active Attacks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is a contribution to the theory of true random number generators based on sampling phase jitter in oscillator rings. After discussing several misconceptions and apparently insurmountable obstacles, we propose a general model which, under mild assumptions, will generate provably random bits with some tolerance to adversarial manipulation and running in the megabit-per-second range. A key idea throughout the paper is the fill rate, which measures the fraction of the time domain in which the analog output signal is arguably random. Our study shows that an exponential increase in the number of oscillators is required to obtain a constant factor improvement in the fill rate. Yet, we overcome this problem by introducing a post-processing step which consists of an application of an appropriate resilient function. These allow the designer to extract random samples only from a signal with only moderate fill rate and therefore many fewer oscillators than in other designs. Lastly, we develop fault-attack models, and we employ the properties of resilient functions to withstand such attacks. All of our analysis is based on rigorous methods, enabling us to develop a framework in which we accurately quantify the performance and the degree of resilience of the design. Key Words: True (and pseudo-) random number generators, resilient functions, cryptography. 1
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it