[Python-ideas] Python's Source of Randomness and the random.py module Redux

Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com
Mon Sep 14 21:26:49 CEST 2015

On 14 September 2015 at 17:00, Cory Benfield <cory at lukasa.co.uk> wrote:
> What makes you think that I didn't take it into account? I did: and
> then rejected it. On a personal level, I believe that defaulting to
> more secure is worth backward compatibility breaks. I believe that a
> major reason for the overwhelming prevalence of security
> vulnerabilities in modern software is because we are overly attached
> to making people's lives *easy* at the expense of making them *safe*.
> I believe that software communities in general are too concerned about
> keeping the stuff that people used around for far too long, and not
> concerned enough about pushing users to make good choice.

OK. In *my* experience, systems with appallingly bad security
practices run for many years with no sign of an exploit. The
vulnerabilities described in this thread pale into insignificance
compared to many I have seen. On the other hand, I regularly see
systems not being upgraded because the cost of confirming that there
are no regressions (much less the cost of making fixes for deliberate
incompatibilities) is deemed too high.

I'm not trying to justify those things, nor am I trying to say that my
experience is in any way "worth more" than yours. These aren't all
Python systems. But the culture where such things occur is real, and I
have no reason to believe that I'm the only person in this position.
(But as it's in-house closed-source, it's essentially impossible to
get any good view of how common it is).


More information about the Python-ideas mailing list