I am writing an application to query the DNS SRV record to find out an internal service for a domain obtained from the email address. Is it correct to do the following.
Lets say the email domain is test.example.com
Query SRV record _service._tcp.test.example.com
No SRV record is returned
Now query SRV record _service._tcp.example.com
A record is returned. Hence use this record to connect
Is the above approach right? Assuming its not, are there any RFCs or standards that prevents an application from doing it?
Is the above approach right?
No, it is not. You should not "climb" to the root.
There is nothing explicitly telling you not to do that in RFCs and you will even find some specifications telling you to climb to the root, see CAA specifications (but they had to be changed over the year because of some unclarity exactly around the part about climbing to the root).
Most of the time, such climbing creates more problems than solution, and it all come from "finding the administrative boundaries" which looks far more simple than what it is really.
If we go back to you example, you say, use _service._tcp.test.example.com and then _service._tcp.example.com and then I suppose you stay there, because you "obviously" know that you shouldn't go to _service._tcp.com as next step, because you "know" that example.com and com are not under the same administrative boundaries, so you shouldn't cross that limit.
Ok, yes, in that specific example (and TLD) things seem simple. But imagine an arbitrary name, let us say www.admin.santé.gouv.fr, how do you know where to stop climbing?
It is a difficult problem in all generality. Attempts were made to solve it (see IETF DBOUND working group) and failed. You have only basically two venues if you need to pursue: either find delegations (zone cuts) by DNS calls (not all delegations are new administrative boundaries, but a change of administration should mean a delegation; and obviously there is not necessarily a delegation at each dot, so you can not find all of this by just looking at the string, you need to do live DNS queries) OR using Mozilla Public Suffix List, which has a lot of drawbacks.
This is all basically a rehash of what you can read in "§4. Zone Boundaries are Invisible to Applications" of RFC5507, quoting the core part here:
The false assumption has lead to an approach called "tree climbing",
where a query that does not receive a positive response (either the
requested RRSet was missing or the name did not exist) is retried by
repeatedly stripping off the leftmost label (climbing towards the
root) until the root domain is reached. Sometimes these proposals
try to avoid the query for the root or the TLD level, but still this
approach has severe drawbacks:
[..]
o For reasons similar to those outlined in RFC 1535 [RFC1535],
querying for information in a domain outside the control of the
intended entity may lead to incorrect results and may also put
security at risk. Finding the exact policy boundary is impossible
without an explicit marker, which does not exist at present. At
best, software can detect zone boundaries (e.g., by looking for
SOA Resource Records), but some TLD registries register names
starting at the second level (e.g., CO.UK), and there are various
other "registry" types at second, third, or other level domains
that cannot be identified as such without policy knowledge
external to the DNS.
Note indeed also the example given for MX because a naive view you apply the same algorithm there, but as the RFC says:
To restate, the zone boundary is purely a boundary that exists in the
DNS for administrative purposes, and applications should be careful
not to draw unwarranted conclusions from zone boundaries. A
different way of stating this is that the DNS does not support
inheritance, e.g., an MX RRSet for a TLD will not be valid for any
subdomain of that particular TLD.
There are various examples of people having tried to climb to the root... and creating a lot of problems:
in the past, Microsoft and wpad.dat: https://news.softpedia.com/news/wpad-protocol-bug-puts-windows-users-at-risk-504443.shtml
more recently, Microsoft again about email autodiscover: https://www.zdnet.com/article/design-flaw-in-microsoft-autodiscover-abused-to-leak-windows-domain-credentials/
So, in short, without a solid understanding of DNS, please do not create anything "climbing" to the root. Do note that RFC2782 about SRV gives "Usage Rules" without a case of climbing to the root.
You are not explaining fully why you are thinking about this. I suggest you have a look at the newest HTTPS/SVCB DNS records (RFCs not published yet, but RR type codepoint assigned by IANA already, and in use by Apple, Cloudflare and Google already), as they may provide similar features set as SRV but may be more relevant for your use case.
Recently, I've read a document of the Kademlia Protocol, I tried to understand the protocol, but I still have some question:
Why a node must find another node when he knows its ID but ip or port?
Why he has the ID while he doesn't know the ip or port, where did he get the ID?
I think the "distance" between two different nodes is not a routing distance or real distance, it's only a virtual distance that can be used the algorithm to find the node quickly, it's that right?
Maybe my English is not very clear because English is not my mother tongue, but I'll try to express myself clear if you need.
Thanks very much!
As cHao said, the distributed nature of the network means that nodes need to publish their IDs and their contact details to other nodes they talk to. There is no central place where IDs are mapped to contact info, so each node must keep this mapping for a subset of the nodes on the network in its own routing table.
Kademlia routing tables are structured so that nodes will have detailed knowledge of the network close to them, and exponentially decreasing knowledge further away.
The use of bitwise XOR as a measure of notional distance between IDs has the advantage that for a given target ID, no two IDs can have the same distance to the target.
Imagine a simple example where the IDs are in the range 00 to 63. If Kademlia used e.g. pure mathematical difference as a measure of distance, 15 and 35 would be the same distance to 25 - both would have a distance of 10. Using XOR, the distance between 15 and 25 is 22, and between 25 and 35 it's 58.
In this way, the group of k closest IDs to a target ID can be calculated unambiguously.
The constant k has a couple of uses in Kademlia, but it's primarily the replication factor. In other words, a piece of data is stored on the k closest nodes to the data's ID.
The lookup process is designed to return either a group of k nodes (before storing data on each of them) or return a single piece of data (from the first node holding it during the lookup iterations).
Because of this, pure Kademlia isn't best suited to finding just a single node, so I'm not sure that part of your question is too relevant. If you did want to use Kademlia to find a single node, it would probably be worth modifying the lookup process to finish early as soon as any node returns the target node's contact details (in the same way that the lookup finishes early if a target value is found during the process).
Since the network is distributed, by definition, there's no one master table of ID->address mappings. Nodes don't have to (and usually don't) know about all the other nodes. The process of "finding" a node is basically to ask known nodes "closest" to the target not so much about the target node directly, but about what nodes are closer to the target. The result of that query gives you the next group of nodes to query, and the process repeats -- and because a node would return results that are closer than it is, each iteration tends to find nodes closer and closer to the target til you finally reach a node that can say "Oh, node X? He's right over there."
At least that's what i'm understanding of it.
What are the most secure sources of entropy to seed a random number generator? This question is language and platform independent and applies to any machine on a network. Ideally I'm looking for sources available to a machine in a cloud environment or server provided by a hosting company.
There are two important weaknesses to keep in mind. The use of time for sending a random number generator is a violation of CWE-337. The use of a small seed space would be a violation of CWE-339.
Here are a few thoughts. If you are impatient, skip to the conclusion, at the end.
1. What is a secure seed ?
Security is defined only relatively to an attack model. We want here a sequence of n bits, that has n bits of entropy with regards to the attacker: in plain words, that any of the possible 2n values for that sequence are equally probable from the attacker point of view.
This is a model which relates to the information available to the attacker. The application which generates and uses the seed (normally in a PRNG) knows the exact seed; whether the seed is "secure" is not an absolute property of the seed or even of the seed generation process. What matters is the amount of information that the attacker has about the generation process. This level of information varies widely depending on the situation; e.g. on a multi-user system (say Unix-like, with hardware-enforced separation of applications), precise timing of memory accesses can reveal information on how a nominally protected process reads memory. Even a remote attacker can obtain such information; this has been demonstrated (in lab conditions) on AES encryption (typical AES implementations use internal tables, with access patterns which depend on the key; the attacker forces cache misses and detects them through precise timing of responses of the server).
The seed lifetime must be taken into account. The seed is secure as long as it remains unknown to the attacker; this property must hold true afterwards. In particular, it shall not be possible to recover the seed from excerpts of the subsequent PRNG output. Ideally, even obtaining the complete PRNG state at some point should offer no clue as to whatever bits the PRNG produced beforehand.
The point I want to make here is that a seed is "secure" only if it is used in a context where it can remain secure, which more or less implies a cryptographically secure PRNG and some tamper-resistant storage. If such storage is available, then the most secure seed is the one that was generated once, a long time ago, and used in a secure PRNG hosted by tamper-resistant hardware.
Unfortunately, such hardware is expensive (it is called a HSM and costs a few hundreds or thousands of dollars), and that cost usually proves difficult to justify (a bad seed will not prevent a system from operating; this is the usual problem of untestability of security). Hence it is customary to go for "mostly software" solutions. Since software is not good at providing long-term confidential storage, the seed lifetime is arbitrarily shortened: a new seed is periodically obtained. In Fortuna, such reseeding is supposed to happen at least once every megabyte of generated pseudo-random data.
To sum up, in a setup without a HSM, a secure seed is one that can be obtained relatively readily (since we will do it quite often) using data that cannot be gathered by the attacker.
2. Mixing
Random data sources do not produce nice uniform bits (each bit having value 1 with probability exactly 0.5, and bit values are independent of each other). Instead, random sources produce values in a source-specific sets. These values can be encoded as sequences of bits, but you do not get your money worth: to have n bits of entropy you must have values which, when encoded, uses much more than n bits.
The cryptographic tool to use here is a PRF which accepts an input of arbitrary length, and produces an n-bit output. A cryptographically secure PRF of that kind is modeled as a random oracle: in short terms, it is not computationally feasible to predict anything about the oracle output on a given input without trying it.
Right now, we have hash functions. Hash functions must fulfill a few security properties, namely resistance to preimages, second preimages, and collisions. We usually analyze hash functions by trying to see how they depart from the random oracle model. There is an important point here: a PRF which follows the random oracle model will be a good hash function, but there can be good hash functions (in the sense of resistance to preimages and collisions) which nonetheless are easy to distinguish from a random oracle. In particular, the SHA-2 functions (SHA-256, SHA-512...) are considered to be secure, but depart from the random oracle model due to the "length extension attack" (given h(m), it is possible to compute h(m || m') for a partially constrained message m' without knowing m). The length extension attack does not seem to provide any shortcut into the creation of preimages or collisions, but it shows that those hash functions are not random oracles. For the SHA-3 competition, NIST stated that candidates should not allow such "length extension".
Hence, the mixing step is not easy. Your best bet is still, right now, to use SHA-256 or SHA-512, and switch to SHA-3 when it is chosen (this should happen around mid-2012).
3. Sources
A computer is a deterministic machine. To get some randomness, you have to mix in the result of some measures of the physical world.
A philosophical note: at some point you have to trust some smart guys, the kind who may wear lab coats or get paid to do fundamental research. When you use a hash function such as SHA-256, you are actually trusting a bunch of cryptographers when they tell you: we looked for flaws, real hard, and for several years, and found none. When you use a decaying bit of radioactive matter with a Geiger counter, you are trusting some physicists who say: we looked real hard for ways to predict when the next atom kernel will go off, but we found none. Note that, in that specific case, the "physicists" include people like Becquerel, Rutherford, Bohr or Einstein, and "real hard" means "more than a century of accumulated research", so you are not exactly in untrodden territory here. Yet there is still a bit of faith in security.
Some computers already include hardware which generates random data (i.e. which uses and measures a physical process which, as far as physicist can tell, is random enough). The VIA C3 (a line of x86-compatible CPU) have such hardware. Strangely enough, the Commodore 64, home computer from 30 years ago, also had a hardware RNG (or so says Wikipedia, at least).
Barring special hardware, you have to use whatever physical events you may get. Typically, you would use keystrokes, incoming ethernet packets, mouse movements, harddisk accesses... every event comes with some data, and occurs at a measurable instant (modern processors have very accurate clocks, thanks to cycle counters). Those instants, and the event data contents, can be accumulated as entropy sources. This is much easier for the operating system itself (which has direct access to the hardware) than for applications, so the normal way of collecting a seed is to ask the operating system (on Linux, this is called /dev/random or /dev/urandom [both have advantages and problems, choose your poison]; on Windows, call CryptGenRandom()).
An extreme case is pre-1.2 Java applets, before the addition of java.security.SecureRandom; since Java is very effective at isolating the application code from the hardware, obtaining a random seed was a tough challenge. The usual solution was to have two or three threads running concurrently and thread-switching madly, so that the number of thread switches per second was somewhat random (in effect, this tries to extract randomness through the timing of the OS scheduler actions, which depend on what also occurs on the machine, including hardware-related events). This was quite unsatisfactory.
A problem with time-related measures is that the attacker also knows what is the current time. If the attacker has applicative access to the machine, then he can read the cycle counter as well.
Some people have proposed using audio cards as sources of "white noise" by setting the amplifier to its max (even servers have audio nowadays). Others argue for powering up webcams (we know that webcam videos are "noisy" and that's good for randomness, even if the webcam is facing a wall); but servers with webcams are not common. You can also ping an external network server (e.g. www.google.com) and see how much time it takes to come back (but this could be observed by an attacker spying on the network).
The beauty of the mixing step, with a hash function, is that entropy can only accumulate; there is no harm in adding data, even if that data is not that random. Just stuff as much as possible through the hash function. Hash functions are quite fast (a good SHA-512 implementation will process more than 150 MB/s on a typical PC, using a single core) and seeding does not happen that often.
4. Conclusion
Use a HSM. They cost a few hundred or thousands of dollars, but aren't your secrets worth much more than that ? A HSM includes RNG hardware, runs the PRNG algorithm, and stores the seed with tamper resistance. Also, most HSM are already certified with regards to various national regulations (e.g. FIPS 140 in the US, and the EAL levels in Europe).
If you are so cheap that you will not buy a HSM, or if you want to protect data which is actually not very worthwhile, then build up a cryptographically secure PRNG using a seed obtained by hashing lots of physical measures. Anything which comes from some hardware should be hashed, along with the instant (read "cycle counter") at which that data was obtained. You should hash data by the megabyte here. Or, better yet, do not do it: simply use the facilities offered by your operating system, which already includes such code.
The most secure seed is the one which has the highest level of entropy (or most number of bits that can not be predicted). Time is a bad seed generally because it has a small entropy (ie. if you know when the transaction took place you can guess the time stamp to within a few bits). Hardware entropy sources (e.g. from decay processes) are very good because they yield one bit of entropy for every bit of seed.
Usually a hardware source is impractical for most needs, so this leads you to rely on mixing a number of low quality entropy sources to produce a higher one. Typically this is done by estimating the number of bits of entropy for each sample and then gathering enough samples so that the search space for the entropy source is large enough that it is impractical for an attacker to search (128 bits is a good rule of thumb).
Some sources which you can use are: current time in microseconds (typically very low entropy of 1/2 a bit depending on resolution and how easy it is for an attacker to guess), interarrival time of UI events etc.
Operating system sources such as /dev/random and the Windows CAPI random number generator often provide a pre-mixed source of these low-entropy sources, for example the Windows generator CryptGenRandom includes:
The current process ID (GetCurrentProcessID).
The current thread ID (GetCurrentThreadID).
The tick count since boot time (GetTickCount).
The current time (GetLocalTime).
Various high-precision performance
counters (QueryPerformanceCounter).-
An MD4 hash of the user's environment
block, which includes username,
computer name, and search path. [...]-
High-precision internal CPU counters, such as RDTSC, RDMSR, RDPMC
Some PRNGs have built-in strategies to allow the mixing of entropy from low quality sources to produce high quality results. One very good generator is the Fortuna generator. It specifically uses strategies which limit the risk if any of the entropy sources are compromised.
The most secure seed is a truly random one, which you can approximate in practical computing systems of today by using, listed in decreasing degrees of confidence:
Special hardware
Facilities provided by your operating system that try to capture chaotic events like disk reads and mouse movements (/dev/random). Another option on this "capture unpredictable events" line is to use an independent process or machine that captures what happens to it as an entropy pool, instead of the OS provided 'secure' random number generator, for an example, see EntropyPool
Using a bad seed (ie, time) and combine it with other data only known to you (for instance, hashing the time with a secret and some other criteria such as PIDs or internal state of the application/OS, so it doesn't necessarily increase and decrease according to time)
As an interesting take on one-time pads, whenever I'm engaged in espionage I have a system whereby I need only communicate a few letters. For example, the last time I was selling secret plans to build toasters to the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, I only needed to whisper:
enonH
to my confederate. She knew to get http://is.gd/enonH- (this is a "safe" expander URL which takes you to the is.gd expansion page which in turn points to a completely SFW image of a frog). This gave us 409k bits of one-time pad or - if I wink while whispering "enonH" - she knows to take the hash of the image and use that as a decoding key for my next transmission.
Because of the compression in JPEG images they tend to be relatively good sources of entropy as reported by ent:
$ ent frog.jpg
Entropy = 7.955028 bits
per byte.
Optimum compression would reduce the
size of this 51092 byte file by 0
percent.
Chi square distribution for 51092
samples is 4409.15, and randomly would
exceed this value 0.01 percent of the
times.
Arithmetic mean value of data bytes is
129.0884 (127.5 = random).
Monte Carlo value for Pi is 3.053435115 (error
2.81 percent).
Serial correlation coefficient is 0.052738 (totally
uncorrelated = 0.0).uncorrelated = 0.0).
Combine that with the nearly impossible to guess image that I directed her to and my secret toaster plans are safe from The Man.
The answer is /dev/random on a Linux machine. This is very close to a "real" random number generator, where as /dev/urandom can be generated by a PRNG if the entropy pool runs dry. The following quote is taken from the Linux kernel's random.c This entire file is a beautiful read, plenty of comments. The code its self was adopted from from PGP. Its beauty is not bounded by the constraints of C, which is marked by global structs wrapped by accessors. It is a simply awe inspiring design.
This routine gathers environmental
noise from device drivers, etc., and
returns good random numbers, suitable
for cryptographic use. Besides the
obvious cryptographic uses, these
numbers are also good for seeding
TCP sequence numbers, and other places
where it is desirable to have
numbers which are not only random, but
hard to predict by an attacker.
Theory of operation
Computers are very predictable devices. Hence it is extremely hard
to produce truly random numbers on a
computer --- as opposed to
pseudo-random numbers, which can
easily generated by using a
algorithm. Unfortunately, it is very
easy for attackers to guess the
sequence of pseudo-random number
generators, and for some
applications this is not acceptable.
So instead, we must try to gather
"environmental noise" from the
computer's environment, which must
be hard for outside attackers to
observe, and use that to generate
random numbers. In a Unix
environment, this is best done from
inside the kernel.
Sources of randomness from the environment include inter-keyboard
timings, inter-interrupt timings from
some interrupts, and other events
which are both (a) non-deterministic
and (b) hard for an outside observer
to measure. Randomness from these
sources are added to an "entropy
pool", which is mixed using a CRC-like
function. This is not
cryptographically strong, but it is
adequate assuming the randomness is
not chosen maliciously, and it is fast
enough that the overhead of doing it
on every interrupt is very reasonable.
As random bytes are mixed into the
entropy pool, the routines keep an
estimate of how many bits of
randomness have been stored into the
random number generator's internal
state.
When random bytes are desired, they are obtained by taking the SHA
hash of the contents of the "entropy
pool". The SHA hash avoids exposing
the internal state of the entropy
pool. It is believed to be
computationally infeasible to derive
any useful information about the
input of SHA from its output. Even if
it is possible to analyze SHA in
some clever way, as long as the amount
of data returned from the generator
is less than the inherent entropy in
the pool, the output data is totally
unpredictable. For this reason, the
routine decreases its internal
estimate of how many bits of "true
randomness" are contained in the
entropy pool as it outputs random
numbers.
If this estimate goes to zero, the routine can still generate random
numbers; however, an attacker may (at
least in theory) be able to infer
the future output of the generator
from prior outputs. This requires
successful cryptanalysis of SHA, which
is not believed to be feasible, but
there is a remote possibility. Nonetheless, these numbers should be
useful for the vast majority of
purposes.
...
Write an Internet radio client, use a random sample from the broadcast. Have a pool of several stations to choose from and/or fall back to.
James is correct. In addition, there is hardware that you can purchase that will give you random data. Not sure where I saw it, but I think I read that some sound cards come with such hardware.
You can also use a site like http://www.random.org/
If you read into crypto-theory, it becomes apparent that the most secure seed would be one generated by a chaotic event. Throughout recent history, covert operations have made use of what is known as a "One-time pad" which is proven impossible to crack. Normally these are generated through an assortment of atmospheric listening posts scattered about the middle of nowhere. Atmospheric noise is sufficiently chaotic to be considered random. The main problem with this method is that the logistics for a one time pad are considerable.
My suggestion to you is to find a sufficiently chaotic event to somehow extract data from.
4 - chosen by very random dice roll. :-)
OK, assuming that the client needs a strong seed, and you are using cloud computing here is a solution, for some hardware random number generators you can look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator
So, this assumes that each client has a public/private key pair, where the server knows the public key for each client.
To generate a key you can use something similar to what was done with PGP, in the beginning, where you take the difference in time between key strokes as someone types, as that won't be guessable.
So, the client submits a request for a random number.
The server uses a hardware generator, encrypts it with the public key, and signs this with the server's private key.
The client then can verify where it came from and then decrypt it.
This will ensure that you can generate a random number and pass it back in a secure fashion.
UPDATE:
Your best bet is to look in the Art of Computer Programming or any of the Numerical Methods book, or look at what Bruce Schneier has written, such as these links:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/06/random_number_g.html http://www.cryptosys.net/rng_algorithms.html
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/06/random_number_g.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/06/random_number_g.html
Suggestions for Random Number Generation in Software, ftp://ftp.rsasecurity.com/pub/pdfs/bull-1.pdf
You can also look at having Crypto++ do the generation, or at least look at how Wei Dai did it, http://www.cryptopp.com/
Random.org offers a true random number generator web service, "seeded" by the atmospheric noise.
You get 200,000 random bits for free each day, up to the 1 million random bits cap after that you should top up your account, it gets as cheap as 4 million bits per dollar.
Simple solution if no additional random hardware are available.
Use milliseconds, mouseX and mouseY to generate a seed.
As the consensus is cryptographically strong random numbers must derived form hardware. Some processors have this functionality (Intel chips amonst others). Also sound cards can be used for this by measuring the low-bit fluctuations in the a-d converter.
But due to the hardware needs the is no language and platform independent answer.
Pretty much any larger OS will have support for secure random numbers. It is also tricky to implement a good random number generator with good output, since you will have to track the remaining entropy in the pool.
So the first step is to determine what language(s) you will be using.
Some do have strong random number support - if this is not the case you would have to abstract the generation to call platform-dependent random sources.
Depending on your security needs be weary of "online" sources since a man-in-the midde can be a serious threat for unauthenticated online sources.
Your most secure methods will come from nature. That is to say, something that happens outside of your computer system and beyond our ability to predict it's patterns.
For instance, many researchers into Cryptographically secure PRNGs will use radioactive decay as a model, others might look into fractals, and so forth. There are existing means of creating true RNGs
One of my favorite ways of implementing a PRNG is from user interaction with a computer. For instance, this post was not something that could be pre-determined by forward-engineering from my past series of posts. Where I left my mouse on my screen is very random, the trail it made is also random. Seeing from user-interactions is. Abuse from the means of providing specific input such that specific numbers are generated could be mitigated by using a 'swarm' of user inputs and calculating it's 'vector', as long as you do not have every user in your system as an Eve, you should be fine. This is not suitable for many applications, as your pool of numbers is directly proportional to user input. Implementing this may have it's own issues.
People interested in RNG have already done things such as:
Use a web cam, whatever the random blips in the screen hash out to, when that truck passes by, that's all random data.
As mentioned already, radiation
Atmosphere
User interaction (as mentioned)
What's going on within the system EDG.
Secure seeds come from nature.
edit:
Based on what you're looking at doing, I might suggest using an aggregation of your cloud server's EDG.
First you need to define the actual use/purpose of the random number generator and why do you think in has to pass so high security standard? The reason I ask is that you mentioned picking it from the could - if you are using it indeed for security purposes then securing the source and the channel to send it around is much more important than anyone's academic knit-picking.
Second element is the size of the actual random numbers you need - big seed is good but only if the number generated is also big - otherwise you'll just be reading the small part of the generated number and that will increase your risk.
Look into reconfigurable ciphers, rather than things like SHA or AES. Here are 2 research papers if you want to read and verify how and why they work:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.97.6594&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/index/q29t6v1p45515186.pdf
Or grab any reconfigurable GOST cipher source code you find on the net and then you an either feed it just any basic seed (like concatenated "ticker" plus a web server node ID (if it's in a web farm) plus a part of response on any internet news site that changes top news all the time or you can feed it highly controlled initial seed (which you can make on your own) and use a light pseudo-random sequence for selecting further cipher configurations. Even NSA can't break that one :-) Since it's always a different cipher. For actual crypto purposes one virtually has to use very controlled initial seed just to be able to replicate the sequence for validation. That's where we go back to first item - securing the source and distribution.
Use random.org they claim to offer true random numbers to anyone on the Internet and they also have an HTTP API which you can use. They offer both free and paid services.
disclaimer: i am not in any way affiliated with random.org
You can earn random numbers generated by radioactive decay. Sounds a little strange at first, but you get real random numbers out of this.
Radioactive Decay
Another Article
THIS IS A GUESS! Crypto geeks please correct if I've got it wrong
The official algorithm for UUID/GUID at this point returns a result that is run through a cryptographic hash function - it takes known information, such as time, mac addr, and a counter to form a UUID/GUID and then runs this through a cryptographic hash to ensure that the mac address cannot be extracted.
I believe you can XOR this down to the number of bits you require for a seed with a reasonably good guarantee that the resultant value is equally distributed over the number space defined by your desired bit count. Note I am not claiming this is secure, only that this action should produce a value that distributes evenly across the bit space over time.
(((PI X current thread ID) X current process ID) / tick count) x pi