[Python-Dev] BDFL ruling request: should we block forever waiting for high-quality random bits?
larry at hastings.org
Thu Jun 16 02:52:19 EDT 2016
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-Dev