osx-serial-generator VS wyhash

easy way to find a valid number is too generate tons and verify them one by one on the apple website as said into the previous link of point 11 use this to generate: https://github.com/sickcodes/osx-serial-generator

You serial HAS to be invalid. There are some criteria that you should follow (it's only partially random), but all of the guides warn you that your generated serial should always result as invalid for Apple: otherwise it'd mean you just generated someone else's serial by accident. If you don't want to do it manually or following the standard guides, there are open source, safe utilities to generate one: https://github.com/sickcodes/osx-serial-generator . I can assure you that getting iServices to work is fairly easy, nowadays.

Here you go: https://github.com/sickcodes/osx-serial-generator and you also need Open Core Configurator or similar software to mount the hidden efi partition

I'm using this script to build the VMs, applying serial numbers and HW model generated with this script. The guests enroll over the hosts VPN and once they get the config profile installing machine certs I can get them on VPN directly, enroll, and start testing.

Link : https://github.com/sickcodes/osx-serial-generator

Generate Complete Sets of Serial Numbers for OS X-KVM, Docker-OS X, OpenCore\ (6 comments)

The code is relatively easy to read if you want to see: https://github.com/sickcodes/osx-serial-generator/blob/master/generate-unique-machine-values.sh

I recently switched to wyhash as it seems to have a good combination of speed and stability.

wyhash is a decent option for if you don't need a cryptographical quality hash

New Bare Hash Map: 2X-3X Speedup over SOTA\ (32 comments)

I feel like you’d want something a bit safer than “we don’t store the keys and just rely on the hash to be really good” [1], putting “please do not use this for serious tasks” in a comment embedded in the header file isn’t a clear enough warning.

It’s not clear to me that that probability of collision assumptions hold. It’s basically assuming that the hashing is perfect and distributes any inputs to the full 64-bit space with uniform probability. That’s the usual hash map / randomized algorithm hope, but does BigCrush or similar avalanche testing really prove that? (Presumably not, otherwise there wouldn’t be image attacks for things like md5).

[1] https://github.com/wangyi-fudan/wyhash/blob/d2a305811972f391...