Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:72327 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 40718 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2014 07:01:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Feb 2014 07:01:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.183 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.183 smtp183.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.183] ([67.192.241.183:36168] helo=smtp183.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 51/E5-09398-45333F25 for ; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 02:01:43 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp18.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 5D9ED268127; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 02:01:38 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp18.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 0D1F326810A; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 02:01:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <52F33350.1060800@sugarcrm.com> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 23:01:36 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Joye CC: "internals@lists.php.net" References: <9E3AA302-1EC1-4497-996F-716555CAAB64@rouvenwessling.de> <52F0139C.2060102@sugarcrm.com> <52F30E3B.1090302@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Timing attack safe string comparison function From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > We do not have to over react here, it is, for a change, that there is > clear consensus about the need or wish for this feature. It is not a > trivial thing to implement but we have time to make it rock solid > until final 5.6.0. There's a consensus about the feature as it was proposed, but when all kind of things start to be added to it, that eventually becomes a different feature from one that was voted on. If the proposal is not ready, then the vote should be delayed. If it's ready then the constant stream of changes, tweaks and additions looks strange - it's really hard to know what the vote is actually about. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227