# Helper method to shuffle cards list for online gaming

I have written this code to shuffle a deck of cards. I would like to hear your inputs.

public static class Helper
{

public static Int32 GetRandomNo(this RNGCryptoServiceProvider rng, byte[] data)
{
rng.GetBytes(data);
var randomNo = BitConverter.ToInt32(data, 0);
return randomNo;
}

public static void Shuffle<T>(this List<T> source)
{
using (RNGCryptoServiceProvider rng = new RNGCryptoServiceProvider())
{
// Buffer storage.
byte[] data = new byte[4];

source =
source.Select(element => new {element, randomValue = rng.GetRandomNo(data)})
.OrderBy(entry => entry.randomValue)
.Select(entry => entry.element)
.ToList();
}
}
}

• I'd suspect you've already seen this? – πάντα ῥεῖ Apr 12 '17 at 17:25
• I have seen that thread, but the approach I am taking is I think different. So wanted to submit the approach for a review to see how good is it from say solns from that thread. :) – Sameer Apr 13 '17 at 2:14

4 bytes is only 4,294,967,296
Consider there are 52! possible shuffles = 8 * 10^67

Use a proper shuffle like Fisher Yates. You get a proper shuffle with only 0-51 random. Also shuffle from the prior shuffle (not a sorted deck). If you look closely Fisher Yates it produces exactly 52! deals. It is perfect.

I am not sure about your algorithm but I think the problem is that it will produce too many shuffles and they will not have uniform distribution. I think it will produce 52^52 deals.

A perfect random with a less than perfect algorithm is a bigger vulnerability than a perfect algorithm and a less than perfect random.

You can use the regular Random and a proper algorithm and not be exploited unless they know the seed. But it does not hurt to use RNGCryptoServiceProvider.

Poker security

• Oops, I'm sorry, I misread the code. I thought that the total randomness would be 32 bits. – Roland Illig Apr 12 '17 at 22:05
• Thanks for the wise words : "A perfect random with a less than perfect algorithm is a bigger vulnerability than a perfect algorithm and a less than perfect random." -:) – Sameer Apr 13 '17 at 4:49

I wonder that the linked SO question does not mention the Sort method. With it you can randomize the list in place by creating a custom Comparison<T>. You should also return the new result so you can chain other extensions if necessary.

public static List<T> Shuffle<T>(this List<T> source)
{
using (var rng = new RNGCryptoServiceProvider())
{
var data = new byte[4];
source.Sort(CompareRandomNumbers<T>(data, rng.GetRandomNo));
return source;
}
}

private static Comparison<T> CompareRandomNumbers<T>(byte[] data, Func<byte[], int> getRandomNumber)
{
return (x, y) => getRandomNumber(data).CompareTo(getRandomNumber(data));
}


Usage:

var randomizedList = new[] { "a", "b", "c", "d" }.ToList().Shuffle();

• Doesn't this code violate the contract for CompareTo? – Roland Illig Apr 12 '17 at 21:29
• @RolandIllig in which way? We are not interested in comparing the actual elements because we randomizing the list so instead we compare random numbers. – t3chb0t Apr 13 '17 at 4:06
• It looks as if getRandomNumberis called more than once for each element. If so, CompareTo doesn't describe an ordering anymore. – Roland Illig Apr 13 '17 at 16:09