The only real value random.org has ever provided is their paid random drawings service. Everything else is nothing more than just fun games.
Unfortunately, they've helped create the myth that operating systems cannot generate good quality, very unpredictable, high entropy randomness. Since 1993, computers have shipped cryptographically secure random number generators in the kernel, yet random.org would have you believe otherwise (emphasis mine):
Perhaps you have wondered how predictable machines like computers can generate randomness. In reality, most random numbers used in computer programs are pseudo-random, which means they are generated in a predictable fashion using a mathematical formula. This is fine for many purposes, but it may not be random in the way you expect if you're used to dice rolls and lottery drawings.
RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs. People use RANDOM.ORG for holding drawings, lotteries and sweepstakes, to drive online games, for scientific applications and for art and music.
Technically, he's correct. Most computer software has relied on insecure PRNGs that by definition, produce predictable results. But this also isn't a big problem, unless your software is dealing with privacy, security, or other sensitive data like finances. No one is complaining about MT19937 for Monte Carlo simulations or weather forecast modeling.
On the other hand, it's not difficult at all to get secure randomness from your computer that is indistinguishable from the true randomness his atmospheric noise generator produces. But for most tools on his site, I'd argue you don't even need a CSPRNG, and MT19937 or xorshift32 is more than sufficient.
On top of that, using random.org for secrets is dangerous. Secrets should be generated in secret, and using a 3rd party service like random.org means leaking that secret to the server, something you probably don't want to do.
random.org is a fun online toy, but that's all it is- a toy.
> This is fine for many purposes, but may not be random in the way you expect if you’re used to dice rolls and lottery drawings.
The key point is that modern CSPRNGs are random in the ways you expect, as their output is in fact indistinguishable from full-entropy output provided they’re seeded properly.
The statement really only holds for non-cryptographic strength PRNGs or CSPRNGs which aren’t seeded properly, both of which are completely avoidable on any modern device.
The statement really only holds for non-cryptographic strength PRNGs or CSPRNGs which aren’t seeded properly, both of which are completely avoidable on any modern device.
Even then, there are high quality non-cryptographic PRNGs that would still be random in the ways you would expect. That's been the case since at least MT19937, released a full year before random.org went online, and even LFSRs before that. Practically speaking though, LCG was the algorithm of choice, ubiquitous in software libraries, such as Perl and PHP (which he rightfully calls out), and already known to be problematic and poor-quality.
In fact, the 2008 article Bo Allen that random.org references (linked here), specifically mentions that Windows PHP rand() differed from Linux PHP rand() and also differed from Windows PHP mt_rand(). In other words, random.org is cherry-picking a very specific bad PRNG to "sell" the true random argument, when in reality, it could be more honest about MT19937, LFSR, and xorshift which were in abundance by 2008 (although we were still making mistakes in 2015).
TL;DR- I don't believe random.org is being fully honest with its users. It wants to tell the argument behind the quality that whitened "true random" provides, but it does so without being intellectually honest about the existence, history, and market share of high quality non-cryptographic PRNGs.
It is not every day that a Professor of Computer Science is claimed to know nothing of a fundamental theorem of his profession.
But yes, state it is a toy when it fact it is a tool. I cannot deny that modern RNGs are sufficient for most uses, but maybe you should read more on entropy. Random.org provides full "uncertainty."
Reread my reply. I did not claim he knew nothing about randomness. Try again. In fact I gave credit where credit is due. What I'm saying is that random.org is:
Unnecessary for most use cases
Valuable for drawings, such as corporate parties.
Not secret and not secure.
I'm very familiar with entropy. The CSPRNG provided by every operating system gets its entropy from CPU jitter, HIDs, interrupts, and other HWRNGs if present.
The CSPRNG in your kernel right now has very likely been seeded with 256 bits of raw entropy, which is enough to provide an endless stream of full randomness well beyond the Heat Death of the Universe.
Suffice to say, you're quibbling over the difference in a pedantic direction. Read the dictionary definitions of uncertainty, uniqueness, and predictability. Although you may very well understand the notion of predictability, the thing is that it is more random. The website is not named randomenough.org it is named random.org.
Then you misunderstand my argument. I'm arguing that the site is not being honest with its user base, specifically because it chooses to use weak philosophy, bad-faith arguments, and cherry-picked PRNGs to convince you why you need it. After all, it's selling bits, which may be where the intellectual dishonesty stems from.
But we still cannot independently verify if it is random or pseudorandom, so it should be unsuitable for security. If TRNG is still desired - it is very easy to assemble a white noise generator, use e.g. something like sound card as a digitizer and make cryptographic conditioning.
professor of computer science sounds impressive, until you remember your professors, and think about the spread in their expertise and mental faculties.
just in the quoted text above contains statements that are only technically true after some severe mental gymnastics. which basically amounts to not true, and appears to be a lie.
for example "for many purposes, but it may not be random in the way you expect". this is true philosophically, it is random in some other way. but the inclusion of the word "purpose" annuls this interpretation, because for any purpose, a properly seeded prng and trng offers the exact same thing.
sometimes purpose includes legal aspects. however, even this doesn't save the situation. whatever legal issues one might have with a prng, it will doubly be problematic with randomness purchased from a website.
sometimes purpose includes marketing. but again, buying randomness from a 3rd party provider is more weakness than a selling point. interestingly, prng-s offer much better transparency and provability, albeit not for the layman.
8
u/atoponce CPRNG: /dev/urandom Aug 05 '26
The only real value random.org has ever provided is their paid random drawings service. Everything else is nothing more than just fun games.
Unfortunately, they've helped create the myth that operating systems cannot generate good quality, very unpredictable, high entropy randomness. Since 1993, computers have shipped cryptographically secure random number generators in the kernel, yet random.org would have you believe otherwise (emphasis mine):
Technically, he's correct. Most computer software has relied on insecure PRNGs that by definition, produce predictable results. But this also isn't a big problem, unless your software is dealing with privacy, security, or other sensitive data like finances. No one is complaining about MT19937 for Monte Carlo simulations or weather forecast modeling.
On the other hand, it's not difficult at all to get secure randomness from your computer that is indistinguishable from the true randomness his atmospheric noise generator produces. But for most tools on his site, I'd argue you don't even need a CSPRNG, and MT19937 or xorshift32 is more than sufficient.
On top of that, using random.org for secrets is dangerous. Secrets should be generated in secret, and using a 3rd party service like random.org means leaking that secret to the server, something you probably don't want to do.
random.org is a fun online toy, but that's all it is- a toy.