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。

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);
    }

最简单的:

public static string GetRandomAlphaNumeric()
{
    return Path.GetRandomFileName().Replace(".", "").Substring(0, 8);
}

如果硬编码char数组并依赖于System，则可以获得更好的性能。随机:

public static string GetRandomAlphaNumeric()
{
    var chars = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789";
    return new string(chars.Select(c => chars[random.Next(chars.Length)]).Take(8).ToArray());
}

如果你担心英文字母可能会改变，你可能会失去业务，那么你可以避免硬编码，但应该表现得稍差(与Path相比)。GetRandomFileName方法)

public static string GetRandomAlphaNumeric()
{
    var chars = 'a'.To('z').Concat('0'.To('9')).ToList();
    return new string(chars.Select(c => chars[random.Next(chars.Length)]).Take(8).ToArray());
}

public static IEnumerable<char> To(this char start, char end)
{
    if (end < start)
        throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("the end char should not be less than start char", innerException: null);
    return Enumerable.Range(start, end - start + 1).Select(i => (char)i);
}

如果您可以将后两种方法作为System上的扩展方法，那么它们看起来会更好。随机的实例。

解决方案1 -最大的“范围”与最灵活的长度

string get_unique_string(int string_length) {
    using(var rng = new RNGCryptoServiceProvider()) {
        var bit_count = (string_length * 6);
        var byte_count = ((bit_count + 7) / 8); // rounded up
        var bytes = new byte[byte_count];
        rng.GetBytes(bytes);
        return Convert.ToBase64String(bytes);
    }
}

这个解决方案比使用GUID有更大的范围，因为GUID有几个固定的位，它们总是相同的，因此不是随机的，例如十六进制中的13个字符总是“4”——至少在版本6的GUID中是这样。

这个解决方案还允许您生成任意长度的字符串。

解决方案2 -一行代码-最多22个字符

Convert.ToBase64String(Guid.NewGuid().ToByteArray()).Substring(0, 8);

你不能生成字符串，只要解决方案1和字符串没有相同的范围，由于GUID的固定位，但在很多情况下，这将完成工作。

解决方案3——代码略少

Guid.NewGuid().ToString("n").Substring(0, 8);

主要是为了历史目的。它使用更少的代码，尽管代价是范围更小——因为它使用十六进制而不是base64，所以与其他解决方案相比，它需要更多的字符来表示相同的范围。

这意味着碰撞的可能性更大——用10万次迭代测试8个字符串，生成一个副本。

我的代码的主要目标是:

弦的分布几乎是均匀的(不关心微小的偏差，只要它们很小) 它为每个参数集输出超过几十亿个字符串。如果您的PRNG只生成20亿(31位熵)不同的值，那么生成8个字符的字符串(约47位熵)是没有意义的。 它是安全的，因为我希望人们使用它作为密码或其他安全令牌。

第一个属性是通过对字母大小取一个64位值的模来实现的。对于小字母(例如问题中的62个字符)，这导致了可以忽略不计的偏差。第二个和第三个属性是通过使用RNGCryptoServiceProvider而不是System.Random来实现的。

using System;
using System.Security.Cryptography;

public static string GetRandomAlphanumericString(int length)
{
    const string alphanumericCharacters =
        "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ" +
        "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz" +
        "0123456789";
    return GetRandomString(length, alphanumericCharacters);
}

public static string GetRandomString(int length, IEnumerable<char> characterSet)
{
    if (length < 0)
        throw new ArgumentException("length must not be negative", "length");
    if (length > int.MaxValue / 8) // 250 million chars ought to be enough for anybody
        throw new ArgumentException("length is too big", "length");
    if (characterSet == null)
        throw new ArgumentNullException("characterSet");
    var characterArray = characterSet.Distinct().ToArray();
    if (characterArray.Length == 0)
        throw new ArgumentException("characterSet must not be empty", "characterSet");

    var bytes = new byte[length * 8];
    var result = new char[length];
    using (var cryptoProvider = new RNGCryptoServiceProvider())
    {
        cryptoProvider.GetBytes(bytes);
    }
    for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
    {
        ulong value = BitConverter.ToUInt64(bytes, i * 8);
        result[i] = characterArray[value % (uint)characterArray.Length];
    }
    return new string(result);
}

有一个令人惊叹的金块包，使这很简单。

var myObject = new Faker<MyObject>()
.RuleFor(p => p.MyAlphaNumericProperty, f => f.Random.AlphaNumeric(/*lenght*/ 7))
.Generate();

这里就是一个很好的例子。