On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall at gmail.com> wrote: > No, the hash randomization is broken, it does not provide enough > randomness (without changing the hash function which only happened in > 3.4+) Hmm, I don't remember reading about that - got a link to more info? Or was that report kept quieter? ChrisA
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4