-1

I've wrote following C# method that basically takes 3 seeds and gives you number in 0-100 range. I then use that number for variety of purposes but for this question the most important one is the ability of clients to see server and supply client value. Here is the method:

// random sha512
private const decimal DIVIDER = (uint.MaxValue - 1)/100M;
public static decimal Random0To100(string secret, string server, string client)
{
    // add 3 strings together, calculate SHA512 hash
    var str = secret + server + client;
    var byt = Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(str);
    byte[] hashByte = null;
    using (SHA512 shaM = new SHA512Managed())
    {
        hashByte = shaM.ComputeHash(byt);
    }

// convert hash into hexadecimal string
var hexHash = BitConverter.ToString(hashByte).Replace("-", "");

// get unsigned 32 integer from first 8 chars of hash
var hex8 = hexHash.Substring(0, 8);
uint l = Convert.ToUInt32(hex8, 16);

// get number between 0 and 100 from hash with 2 decimals
var num = l / DIVIDER;
var fin = Math.Round(num, 2);

// return result, like 71.28
return fin;



}

Secret seed is 512 bit value sent in as a string.

The thing I am curious about is if it's possible for end-user to guess secret seed if he is given ability to supply BOTH server & client values (and see the 0-100 output obviously) for extended period of time (say the time is 24 hours and the only restriction I impose is that those server/client are at least 10 char long when added TOGETHER).

If you deem that it is theoretically possible to guess secret, please advise as to what I can do without changing the algorithm too much. I was thinking about variety of things:

  1. Increase seed size (1024, 2048... etc)
  2. Increase range from uint (32bit), to ulong (64bit)
  3. Enforce stronger requirements for server/client strings

Basically, I just want to make sure that it's not possible for someone to guess seed or random number while still providing users with ability to supply both server & client values (obviously for server value I'll re-generate it on server on user request, not allow him to supply it directly).

Because of high number of comments (most of which point to unrelated things), let me try to clarify the question. In a nutshell what I am trying to do is generate a random number that users can later verify was not fixed/influenced in any way by me. So, I will generate secret seed using RNGCryptoServiceProvider and it'll be say 512 chars long. Then I'll give ability to clients to generate 10 numbers for raffle (they can request generation of new server seed for each request they send in, plus send arbitrary string as a client seed). After those 10 numbers I'll generate new secret seed, publish old one so they see nothing influenced by me and so on...

So, I am:

  • NOT trying invent new crypto standard
  • NOT trying to generate true random numbers

I am building a method that takes in a string (secret+server+client seed) and produces number from 0.00 to 100.00. And the only thing I was wondering was whether or not somebody can guess secret string if he is able to get enough numbers back from that method (+ he sees server string and can send arbitrary client string). That's all. No homebrew crypto. No true random.

So, if anyone with computer science knowledge can confirm that what I am doing in algorithm is not prone to attack (user can guess secret seed after sending server/client seeds and getting several values back), or suggest a better way and post code that explains it - I would be extremely grateful. Otherwise, if you can only talk about theory and post unrelated links, I beg you to please just leave the question alone and not pollute it. Thanks.

To show in practice, these are 5 random numbers along with server/client seeds (server = server seed, c = client seed, number = generated number from that method; server and client seeds are short on purpose).

server C Number
k23op 0 96.40
gfsqu 1 22.07
n0dpd 2 91.62
ds02d 3 48.25
hf03d 4 55.26

Let me know if you can guess the secret seed. If you need more computing power, send me algorithm you are trying to execute, I'll review it and put it to run on multiple servers.

avpaderno
  • 155
  • 1
  • 8
nikib3ro
  • 109
  • 1
  • 1
  • 7

3 Answers3

3

generate a random number that users can later verify was not fixed/influenced in any way by me.

There's no way to do that on your own. But you can ask users to contribute to the seed, eg.

  • Generate a seed $s$
  • Commit to $s$ and send commitment to the user
  • User generates his own seed, $s'$ and sends it to you

  • Combine (eg. XOR) the two seeds together. As long as at least one is random, neither can influence the outcome in a statistically signifcant way

  • Commence with the protocol as usual

  • Send $s$ and assorted info to the user

At the end the user is able to reconstruct the random stream.

If you don't want or can't have the users generating seeds, you can always assign this task to a trusted third party.

rath
  • 2,598
  • 3
  • 27
  • 40
2

By inventing your own random number generator, you are chasing a red herring. There is no need whatsoever for you to invent your own RNG. Combining cryptographic primitives on your own is exceedingly dangerous, and worse, there's no actual need to do so.

Unfortunately, if you are only choosing 10 numbers between 1-100, there are only $100^{10}$ possible orderings. No amount of combining values from clients will save you from the fact that this is on the edge of brute-forceability for your purposes. You want to prove that you didn't manipulate the results by publishing a value after the fact, but there is no way to demonstrate you haven't simply brute-forced your way through possible seeds to reach an outcome that is favorable to you (e.g., as few winners as possible).

What you appear to need is a commitment scheme. Before your users submit entries to a particular raffle, you should publish some value that strongly commits you to a particular seed but from which the seed cannot be determined. If you generate a seed $s$ and publish $\mathrm{H}(s)$ where $H$ is something like SHA-256, it would be exceedingly difficult for you to later influence the results by finding some new seed $s'$ such that $\mathrm{H}(s) = \mathrm{H}(s')$.

However, there's one small catch. If raffle entries aren't evenly distributed, it still is possible for you to analyze their distribution and come up with seeds that, on average, reduce your payouts. So you will also likely need to publish historical seeds and distributions of winning numbers to prove that you aren't cheating.

Stephen Touset
  • 11,162
  • 1
  • 39
  • 53
2

With your clarification edits it is clear what you are looking for.

Generated Value = SHA512(A || B || C)
Where A = 512 bit secret
Where B = x bits server seed and can be attacker chosen
Where C = x bits client seed and can be attacker chosen

The thing I am curious about is if it's possible for end-user to guess secret seed if he is given ability to supply BOTH server & client values (and see the 0-100 output obviously) for extended period of time (say the time is 24 hours and the only restriction I impose is that those server/client are at least 10 char long when added TOGETHER).

If you are using SHA-512, and you are using a 512-bit secret with at least half entropy, then no, it should be impossible for them to determine the secret seed. This is a brute force attack on a 512-bit hash function with 512-bits of unknown input, the amount of computing power to do this in 24 hours (or 24 years) does not currently exist on this planet. You should be able to generate billions of outputs with this secret and stay safe.

The same logic follows with being able to guess outputs without the secret. Although the size of your output is a concern here, the output of the hash will be impossible to predict if an attacker controls the server and client seeds but has no knowledge of the secret.

I would also suggest that it should be infeasible for an you to generate a list of outputs for all possible client seeds for any given server in advance, for the comfort of the clients. That means having larger server and client seeds, I would say 64 to 128 bits in length.

Your server seeds should be fixed with full entropy and never changed, have them be a unique ID for that server. I would be more comfortable as a client knowing you aren't intentionally manipulating them to match the secret in some way. They could be generated deterministically, such as by using a block cipher in counter mode, and incrementing the counter. Publishing the key used to generate them (such as SHA256("Generating Key")) and the method used is a good idea, proving there was no special way they were generated.

The client seeds should also be large enough that a collision is unlikely to occur. I would suggest publishing a 64-bit user id for each client, and allowing the client to choose and 2nd 64-bit value for their input, and concatenate these to form the client seed.

This gives 3 inputs to the hash, a 512 bit secret, a 128 bit server seed, and a 128 bit client seed. All 3 run through a single iteration of the hash, and then compressed or truncated. If I was a client, and knew how the scheme worked, I would be confident you could not manipulate the outcome, even if you never published the secret. Publishing the secret would allow me to verify that you are in fact using the scheme the way you described.

Of course I would need to know that you did not manipulate the secret after the first client input, this can be done by publishing something to prove what secret you are using but does not allow knowledge of the secret, such as SHA256(SHA256(Secret)) a la bitcoin proof of work. It would be trivial to publish this before input of client seeds, then once the secret is published, users could verify the secret existed before the first client seed was processed.

The concern I have here is the size of your outputs. A decimal number seems.... small. I would suggest a 32 or 64 bit unsigned integer value, such as the first few hash bytes converted to hexidecimal. If you have some specific reason for having a decimal output with only 10000 possible outputs I would like to hear it. That would make me uncomfortable as a client, unless there is a very good reason for it.

A Stephen said, you should maintain verifiable records of all generated values.

Richie Frame
  • 13,278
  • 1
  • 26
  • 42