RetroSearch Browse

Thu Jun 16 08:57:54 EDT 2016 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-June/145264.html

Cory Benfield <cory <at> lukasa.co.uk> writes:
> python-dev cannot wash its hands of the security decision here. As I’ve
said many times, I’m pleased to
> see the decision makers have not done that: while I don’t agree with their
decision, I totally respect
> that it was theirs to make, and they made it with all of the facts.

I think the sysadmin's responsibility still plays a major role here.
If a Linux system crucially relies on the quality of /dev/urandom, it
should be possible to insert a small C program (call it ensure_random)
into the boot sequence that does *exactly* what Python did in the
bug report: block until entropy is available.

Well, it *was* possible with SysVinit ... :)

Python is not the only application that needs a secure /dev/urandom.

Stefan Krah

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-June/145264.html below:

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