如果你的值不是完全随机的，但实际上可能依赖于某些东西——你可以计算出“某个东西”的md5或sha1哈希，然后将其截断为你想要的任何长度。

你也可以生成和截断一个guid。

我简单的一行代码为我工作:)

string  random = string.Join("", Guid.NewGuid().ToString("n").Take(8).Select(o => o));

Response.Write(random.ToUpper());
Response.Write(random.ToLower());

对任意长度的字符串展开

    public static string RandomString(int length)
    {
        //length = length < 0 ? length * -1 : length;
        var str = "";

        do 
        {
            str += Guid.NewGuid().ToString().Replace("-", "");
        }

        while (length > str.Length);

        return str.Substring(0, length);
    }

在查看了其他答案并考虑了CodeInChaos的评论，以及CodeInChaos仍然有偏见(尽管较少)的答案之后，我认为需要一个最终的终极剪切和粘贴解决方案。所以在更新我的答案时，我决定全力以赴。

For an up to date version of this code, please visit the new Hg repository on Bitbucket: https://bitbucket.org/merarischroeder/secureswiftrandom. I recommend you copy and paste the code from: https://bitbucket.org/merarischroeder/secureswiftrandom/src/6c14b874f34a3f6576b0213379ecdf0ffc7496ea/Code/Alivate.SolidSwiftRandom/SolidSwiftRandom.cs?at=default&fileviewer=file-view-default (make sure you click the Raw button to make it easier to copy and make sure you have the latest version, I think this link goes to a specific version of the code, not the latest).

更新说明:

Relating to some other answers - If you know the length of the output, you don't need a StringBuilder, and when using ToCharArray, this creates and fills the array (you don't need to create an empty array first) Relating to some other answers - You should use NextBytes, rather than getting one at a time for performance Technically you could pin the byte array for faster access.. it's usually worth it when your iterating more than 6-8 times over a byte array. (Not done here) Use of RNGCryptoServiceProvider for best randomness Use of caching of a 1MB buffer of random data - benchmarking shows cached single bytes access speed is ~1000x faster - taking 9ms over 1MB vs 989ms for uncached. Optimised rejection of bias zone within my new class.

问题的最终解决方案:

static char[] charSet =  "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0123456789".ToCharArray();
static int byteSize = 256; //Labelling convenience
static int biasZone = byteSize - (byteSize % charSet.Length);
public string GenerateRandomString(int Length) //Configurable output string length
{
    byte[] rBytes = new byte[Length]; //Do as much before and after lock as possible
    char[] rName = new char[Length];
    SecureFastRandom.GetNextBytesMax(rBytes, biasZone);
    for (var i = 0; i < Length; i++)
    {
        rName[i] = charSet[rBytes[i] % charSet.Length];
    }
    return new string(rName);
}

但是你需要我的新(未经测试的)类:

/// <summary>
/// My benchmarking showed that for RNGCryptoServiceProvider:
/// 1. There is negligable benefit of sharing RNGCryptoServiceProvider object reference 
/// 2. Initial GetBytes takes 2ms, and an initial read of 1MB takes 3ms (starting to rise, but still negligable)
/// 2. Cached is ~1000x faster for single byte at a time - taking 9ms over 1MB vs 989ms for uncached
/// </summary>
class SecureFastRandom
{
    static byte[] byteCache = new byte[1000000]; //My benchmark showed that an initial read takes 2ms, and an initial read of this size takes 3ms (starting to raise)
    static int lastPosition = 0;
    static int remaining = 0;

    /// <summary>
    /// Static direct uncached access to the RNGCryptoServiceProvider GetBytes function
    /// </summary>
    /// <param name="buffer"></param>
    public static void DirectGetBytes(byte[] buffer)
    {
        using (var r = new RNGCryptoServiceProvider())
        {
            r.GetBytes(buffer);
        }
    }

    /// <summary>
    /// Main expected method to be called by user. Underlying random data is cached from RNGCryptoServiceProvider for best performance
    /// </summary>
    /// <param name="buffer"></param>
    public static void GetBytes(byte[] buffer)
    {
        if (buffer.Length > byteCache.Length)
        {
            DirectGetBytes(buffer);
            return;
        }

        lock (byteCache)
        {
            if (buffer.Length > remaining)
            {
                DirectGetBytes(byteCache);
                lastPosition = 0;
                remaining = byteCache.Length;
            }

            Buffer.BlockCopy(byteCache, lastPosition, buffer, 0, buffer.Length);
            lastPosition += buffer.Length;
            remaining -= buffer.Length;
        }
    }

    /// <summary>
    /// Return a single byte from the cache of random data.
    /// </summary>
    /// <returns></returns>
    public static byte GetByte()
    {
        lock (byteCache)
        {
            return UnsafeGetByte();
        }
    }

    /// <summary>
    /// Shared with public GetByte and GetBytesWithMax, and not locked to reduce lock/unlocking in loops. Must be called within lock of byteCache.
    /// </summary>
    /// <returns></returns>
    static byte UnsafeGetByte()
    {
        if (1 > remaining)
        {
            DirectGetBytes(byteCache);
            lastPosition = 0;
            remaining = byteCache.Length;
        }

        lastPosition++;
        remaining--;
        return byteCache[lastPosition - 1];
    }

    /// <summary>
    /// Rejects bytes which are equal to or greater than max. This is useful for ensuring there is no bias when you are modulating with a non power of 2 number.
    /// </summary>
    /// <param name="buffer"></param>
    /// <param name="max"></param>
    public static void GetBytesWithMax(byte[] buffer, byte max)
    {
        if (buffer.Length > byteCache.Length / 2) //No point caching for larger sizes
        {
            DirectGetBytes(buffer);

            lock (byteCache)
            {
                UnsafeCheckBytesMax(buffer, max);
            }
        }
        else
        {
            lock (byteCache)
            {
                if (buffer.Length > remaining) //Recache if not enough remaining, discarding remaining - too much work to join two blocks
                    DirectGetBytes(byteCache);

                Buffer.BlockCopy(byteCache, lastPosition, buffer, 0, buffer.Length);
                lastPosition += buffer.Length;
                remaining -= buffer.Length;

                UnsafeCheckBytesMax(buffer, max);
            }
        }
    }

    /// <summary>
    /// Checks buffer for bytes equal and above max. Must be called within lock of byteCache.
    /// </summary>
    /// <param name="buffer"></param>
    /// <param name="max"></param>
    static void UnsafeCheckBytesMax(byte[] buffer, byte max)
    {
        for (int i = 0; i < buffer.Length; i++)
        {
            while (buffer[i] >= max)
                buffer[i] = UnsafeGetByte(); //Replace all bytes which are equal or above max
        }
    }
}

对于历史-我对这个答案的旧解决方案，使用随机对象:

    private static char[] charSet =
      "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0123456789".ToCharArray();

    static rGen = new Random(); //Must share, because the clock seed only has Ticks (~10ms) resolution, yet lock has only 20-50ns delay.
    static int byteSize = 256; //Labelling convenience
    static int biasZone = byteSize - (byteSize % charSet.Length);
    static bool SlightlyMoreSecurityNeeded = true; //Configuration - needs to be true, if more security is desired and if charSet.Length is not divisible by 2^X.
    public string GenerateRandomString(int Length) //Configurable output string length
    {
      byte[] rBytes = new byte[Length]; //Do as much before and after lock as possible
      char[] rName = new char[Length];
      lock (rGen) //~20-50ns
      {
          rGen.NextBytes(rBytes);

          for (int i = 0; i < Length; i++)
          {
              while (SlightlyMoreSecurityNeeded && rBytes[i] >= biasZone) //Secure against 1/5 increased bias of index[0-7] values against others. Note: Must exclude where it == biasZone (that is >=), otherwise there's still a bias on index 0.
                  rBytes[i] = rGen.NextByte();
              rName[i] = charSet[rBytes[i] % charSet.Length];
          }
      }
      return new string(rName);
    }

性能:

securefastrrandom -第一次运行= ~9-33ms。听不清。持续:5毫秒(有时高达13毫秒)超过10,000次迭代，单次平均迭代= 1.5微秒。注意:通常需要2个缓存刷新，但偶尔需要8个缓存刷新——这取决于有多少单个字节超出了偏置区域 随机-第一次运行= ~0-1ms。听不清。正在进行:5毫秒超过10,000次迭代。单次平均迭代= 0.5微秒。速度差不多。

还可以看看:

https://bitbucket.org/merarischroeder/number-range-with-no-bias/src https://stackoverflow.com/a/45118325/887092

这些联系是另一种方法。缓冲可以添加到这个新的代码库中，但最重要的是探索不同的方法来消除偏差，并对速度和利弊进行基准测试。

在这个线程中只是一些不同答案的性能比较:

方法与设置

// what's available
public static string possibleChars = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";
// optimized (?) what's available
public static char[] possibleCharsArray = possibleChars.ToCharArray();
// optimized (precalculated) count
public static int possibleCharsAvailable = possibleChars.Length;
// shared randomization thingy
public static Random random = new Random();


// http://stackoverflow.com/a/1344242/1037948
public string LinqIsTheNewBlack(int num) {
    return new string(
    Enumerable.Repeat(possibleCharsArray, num)
              .Select(s => s[random.Next(s.Length)])
              .ToArray());
}

// http://stackoverflow.com/a/1344258/1037948
public string ForLoop(int num) {
    var result = new char[num];
    while(num-- > 0) {
        result[num] = possibleCharsArray[random.Next(possibleCharsAvailable)];
    }
    return new string(result);
}

public string ForLoopNonOptimized(int num) {
    var result = new char[num];
    while(num-- > 0) {
        result[num] = possibleChars[random.Next(possibleChars.Length)];
    }
    return new string(result);
}

public string Repeat(int num) {
    return new string(new char[num].Select(o => possibleCharsArray[random.Next(possibleCharsAvailable)]).ToArray());
}

// http://stackoverflow.com/a/1518495/1037948
public string GenerateRandomString(int num) {
  var rBytes = new byte[num];
  random.NextBytes(rBytes);
  var rName = new char[num];
  while(num-- > 0)
    rName[num] = possibleCharsArray[rBytes[num] % possibleCharsAvailable];
  return new string(rName);
}

//SecureFastRandom - or SolidSwiftRandom
static string GenerateRandomString(int Length) //Configurable output string length
{
    byte[] rBytes = new byte[Length]; 
    char[] rName = new char[Length];
    SolidSwiftRandom.GetNextBytesWithMax(rBytes, biasZone);
    for (var i = 0; i < Length; i++)
    {
        rName[i] = charSet[rBytes[i] % charSet.Length];
    }
    return new string(rName);
}

结果

在LinqPad中测试。对于长度为10的字符串，生成:

from Linq = chdgmevhcy [10] from Loop = gtnoaryhxr [10] from Select = rsndbztyby [10] from GenerateRandomString = owyefjjakj [10] from securefastrrandom = VzougLYHYP [10] from securefastrrandom - nocache = oVQXNGmO1S [10]

性能数据会有细微的变化，偶尔NonOptimized会更快，有时ForLoop和GenerateRandomString会切换谁领先。

LinqIsTheNewBlack (10000x) = 96762 ticks elapsed (9.6762 ms) ForLoop (10000x) = 28970滴答流逝(2.897毫秒) ForLoopNonOptimized (10000x) = 33336滴答流逝(3.3336毫秒) 重复(10000x) = 78547滴答流逝(7.8547毫秒) GenerateRandomString (10000x) = 27416 tick elapsed (2.7416 ms) securefastrrandom (10000x) = 13176滴答流逝(5ms)最低[不同的机器] securefastrrandom - nocache (10000x) = 39541 ticks elapsed (17ms) low[不同的机器]

Eric J.写的代码很潦草(很明显这是6年前写的……他今天可能不会写那个代码)，甚至还有一些问题。

与目前提出的一些替代方案不同，这个方案在密码学上是合理的。

不真实的…在密码中有一个偏差(正如在注释中所写的那样)，bcdefgh比其他的更有可能(a不是，因为通过GetNonZeroBytes，它不会生成值为0的字节，因此a的偏差由它平衡)，所以它在密码学上并不可靠。

这应该可以纠正所有的问题。

public static string GetUniqueKey(int size = 6, string chars = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ1234567890")
{
    using (var crypto = new RNGCryptoServiceProvider())
    {
        var data = new byte[size];

        // If chars.Length isn't a power of 2 then there is a bias if
        // we simply use the modulus operator. The first characters of
        // chars will be more probable than the last ones.

        // buffer used if we encounter an unusable random byte. We will
        // regenerate it in this buffer
        byte[] smallBuffer = null;

        // Maximum random number that can be used without introducing a
        // bias
        int maxRandom = byte.MaxValue - ((byte.MaxValue + 1) % chars.Length);

        crypto.GetBytes(data);

        var result = new char[size];

        for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
        {
            byte v = data[i];

            while (v > maxRandom)
            {
                if (smallBuffer == null)
                {
                    smallBuffer = new byte[1];
                }

                crypto.GetBytes(smallBuffer);
                v = smallBuffer[0];
            }

            result[i] = chars[v % chars.Length];
        }

        return new string(result);
    }
}

不是100%确定，因为我没有测试这里的每个选项，但在我测试的选项中，这个是最快的。用秒表计时，它显示9-10滴答，所以如果速度比安全更重要，试试这个:

 private static Random random = new Random(); 
 public static string Random(int length)
     {   
          var stringChars = new char[length];

          for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
              {
                  stringChars[i] = (char)random.Next(0x30, 0x7a);                  
                  return new string(stringChars);
              }
     }