RetroSearch Browse

Thu Jun 16 07:27:01 EDT 2016 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-June/145270.html

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:

> In my opinion, this is a usability issue as well. You have a ton of third
> party documentation and effort around “just use urandom” for Cryptographic
> random which is generally the right (and best!) answer except for this one
> little niggle on a Linux platform where /dev/urandom *may* produce
> predictable bytes (but usually doesn’t).

Why not consider opt-out behavior with environment variables? Eg: people
that don't care about crypto mumbojumbo and want fast interpreter startup
could just use a PYTHONWEAKURANDOM=y or PYTHONFASTURANDOM=y.

That ways there's no need to change api of os.urandom() and users have a
clear and easy path to get old behavior.

Thanks,
-- Ionel Cristian Mărieș, http://blog.ionelmc.ro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20160616/16bd71a9/attachment.html>

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-June/145270.html below:

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