Talk:Random oracle

message: I was redirected from Standard Model (cryptography) to Random Oracle, suggesting that they are the same thing. Yet the article talks about '"random oracle model", as opposed to the "standard model". ' So are they not different?
I haven't really read the article, and I don't know anything about cryptography, but I'm already confused by this little thing. And I agree that Random Oracle Model would problably be a better name for the article. If Standard Model is a different thing, it's worth a separate article.--HelgeStenstrom 08:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard model versus Random Oracle 

message: "Such a proof generally shows that a system or a protocol is secure by showing that an attacker must require impossible behavior from the oracle, or solve some mathematical problem believed hard, in order to break the protocol."
I'm not an expert but I do not believe that the random oracle models demonstrates an attacker must ``solve some mathematical problem believed hard." I think this is a property of complexity theoretic security (or computational security). See also Provably secure, the discussion page may be of more use. Bah23 10:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random oracle does not imply mathematical problem believed hard 

message: The last paragraph of the article says, "No real function can implement a true random oracle."
I seems as if the author was trying to say that there is no practical way to write a computer program that behaves like a random oracle.  That would make sense:  The only conceivable way to do it is with a lookup table that maps each possible input to the corresponding output—Somewhat of a problem if the domain is infinite.
I would change the section myself if I weren't too much of a tyro to know for sure...  Maybe a real function is something special that I don't understand.  (I thought a random oracle was a function.)  Maybe it's some obscure term of art when somebody says that a function implements something.
I wish that someone who knows better than I would edit that section to make it more clear.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.12.36 (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 from me. Actually, I did not understand the concept after reading the whole article, but these 2 sentences make it really clear indeed. 89.204.153.167 (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As a mathematician but non-expert in cryptography, I couldn't understand the article. But I do understand these 2 sentences. Can some expert please put them in and adapt the "verbal" description currently present in the article to mesh with them?84.226.6.172 (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does, "No real function..." mean? 

message: I added a reference to a paper by Craig Gentry and Zulfikar Ramzan.
The caption in Figure 1 of that paper
draws a distinction between
a "random permutation oracle" and
a "random function oracle".
Should we mention both kinds of oracles in this article, and which one is a "random oracle"?
--DavidCary (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  two kinds of random oracle 

message: I believe the usage of the WP:WEASEL tag in reference to the term random oracle is incorrect in this case. The term does not mean random in the sense of "an arbitrarily chosen instance from a set" so much as describe the function of the oracle: to provide a random, fixed response to a query. Unless, of course, this tag was not referencing the ambiguous meaning random at all, and was instead referring to the lack of attribution as to who or what uses random oracles.
In case of the latter, I have merely commented out the tag, and not removed it. If anyone believes it should remain, feel free to revert that edit. I will also look for examples to support that statement, in any case. -AfroThundr3007730 (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupported Attributions / Weasel Words