这里有一个机制来生成一个随机的字母-数字字符串(我用它来生成密码和测试数据)，而不定义字母和数字，

CleanupBase64将删除字符串中必要的部分，并继续递归地添加随机的字母-数字字母。

        public static string GenerateRandomString(int length)
        {
            var numArray = new byte[length];
            new RNGCryptoServiceProvider().GetBytes(numArray);
            return CleanUpBase64String(Convert.ToBase64String(numArray), length);
        }

        private static string CleanUpBase64String(string input, int maxLength)
        {
            input = input.Replace("-", "");
            input = input.Replace("=", "");
            input = input.Replace("/", "");
            input = input.Replace("+", "");
            input = input.Replace(" ", "");
            while (input.Length < maxLength)
                input = input + GenerateRandomString(maxLength);
            return input.Length <= maxLength ?
                input.ToUpper() : //In my case I want capital letters
                input.ToUpper().Substring(0, maxLength);
        }

这是我从Dot Net Perls的Sam Allen那里偷来的一个例子

如果你只需要8个字符，那么在系统中使用Path.GetRandomFileName()。IO命名空间。Sam说使用“Path.”这里的GetRandomFileName方法有时更优越，因为它使用RNGCryptoServiceProvider来获得更好的随机性。然而，它被限制为11个随机字符。”

GetRandomFileName总是返回一个12个字符的字符串，第9个字符是句点。所以你需要去掉句点(因为这不是随机的)，然后从字符串中取出8个字符。实际上，你可以只取前8个字符而不用考虑句点。

public string Get8CharacterRandomString()
{
    string path = Path.GetRandomFileName();
    path = path.Replace(".", ""); // Remove period.
    return path.Substring(0, 8);  // Return 8 character string
}

PS:谢谢，Sam

我知道这不是最好的办法。但是你可以试试这个。

string str = Path.GetRandomFileName(); //This method returns a random file name of 11 characters
str = str.Replace(".","");
Console.WriteLine("Random string: " + str);

问:为什么我要浪费时间使用Enumerable ?范围，而不是输入“ABCDEFGHJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0123456789”?

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;

public class Test
{
    public static void Main()
    {
        var randomCharacters = GetRandomCharacters(8, true);
        Console.WriteLine(new string(randomCharacters.ToArray()));
    }

    private static List<char> getAvailableRandomCharacters(bool includeLowerCase)
    {
        var integers = Enumerable.Empty<int>();
        integers = integers.Concat(Enumerable.Range('A', 26));
        integers = integers.Concat(Enumerable.Range('0', 10));

        if ( includeLowerCase )
            integers = integers.Concat(Enumerable.Range('a', 26));

        return integers.Select(i => (char)i).ToList();
    }

    public static IEnumerable<char> GetRandomCharacters(int count, bool includeLowerCase)
    {
        var characters = getAvailableRandomCharacters(includeLowerCase);
        var random = new Random();
        var result = Enumerable.Range(0, count)
            .Select(_ => characters[random.Next(characters.Count)]);

        return result;
    }
}

答案:魔术弦不好。有没有人注意到在我的字符串顶部没有“I”?我妈妈教我不要用魔法弦就是因为这个原因……

注意事项1:正如许多像@dtb这样的人所说，不要使用系统。随机的，如果你需要密码安全…

注2:这个答案不是最有效或最短的，但我想用空间把答案和问题分开。我回答这个问题的目的，更多的是为了警告人们不要使用神奇的字符串，而不是提供一个花哨的创新答案。

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。

现在是单行风格。

private string RandomName()
{
        return new string(
            Enumerable.Repeat("ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ", 13)
                .Select(s =>
                {
                    var cryptoResult = new byte[4];
                    using (var cryptoProvider = new RNGCryptoServiceProvider())
                        cryptoProvider.GetBytes(cryptoResult);

                    return s[new Random(BitConverter.ToInt32(cryptoResult, 0)).Next(s.Length)];
                })
                .ToArray());
}