Message265555
| Author | Colm Buckley |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Colm Buckley, doko, lemburg, matejcik, rhettinger, socketpair, thomas-petazzoni, vstinner |
| Date | 2016-05-14.23:09:28 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1463267368.81.0.11462956767.issue26839@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
@haypo - yes, I think you're right. Can you delete those two lines (or I can upload another version if you prefer). I think the pragmatic thing here is to proceed by reading /dev/urandom (as we've discussed). It's not safe to raise an exception in py_getrandom from what I can see; a thorough effort to signal the lack of randomness to outer functions needs more code examination than I have time to carry out at the moment. From looking at when PyRandom_Init is called and how the hash secret is used; I think it is safe to proceed with /dev/urandom. The general understanding is that urandom has a lower entropy quotient than random, so it's hopefully not going to be used in strong crypto contexts. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2016-05-14 23:09:28 | Colm Buckley | set | recipients: + Colm Buckley, lemburg, rhettinger, doko, vstinner, matejcik, socketpair, thomas-petazzoni |
| 2016-05-14 23:09:28 | Colm Buckley | set | messageid: <1463267368.81.0.11462956767.issue26839@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2016-05-14 23:09:28 | Colm Buckley | link | issue26839 messages |
| 2016-05-14 23:09:28 | Colm Buckley | create | |