RetroSearch Browse

Thu Jun 16 02:52:19 EDT 2016 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-June/145242.html

On 06/15/2016 11:45 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> So we very clearly provided platform-dependent caveats on the cryptographic
> quality of os.urandom().  We also made a strong claim that there's a direct
> connection between os.urandom() and /dev/urandom on "Unix-like system(s)".
>
> We broke that particular promise in 3.5. and semi-fixed it 3.5.2.

Well, 3.5.2 hasn't happened yet.  So if you see it as still being 
broken, please speak up now.

Why do you call it only "semi-fixed"?  As far as I understand it, the 
semantics of os.urandom() in 3.5.2rc1 are indistinguishable from reading 
from /dev/urandom directly, except it may not need to use a file handle.

//arry/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20160615/fc4872fe/attachment.html>

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-June/145242.html below:

[Python-Dev] BDFL ruling request: should we block forever waiting for high-quality random bits?