Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97908 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 79264 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2017 02:26:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Jan 2017 02:26:37 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=yohgaki@ohgaki.net; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=yohgaki@ohgaki.net; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ohgaki.net designates 180.42.98.130 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: yohgaki@ohgaki.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 180.42.98.130 ns1.es-i.jp Received: from [180.42.98.130] ([180.42.98.130:49924] helo=es-i.jp) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id E3/EB-00729-CD6C2885 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 21:26:37 -0500 Received: (qmail 43064 invoked by uid 89); 21 Jan 2017 02:26:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-wm0-f42.google.com) (yohgaki@ohgaki.net@74.125.82.42) by 0 with ESMTPA; 21 Jan 2017 02:26:33 -0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f42.google.com with SMTP id c85so60793225wmi.1 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 18:26:32 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLT5l8P83yxuv/5cMAXpU5LOFLZb4tN8MgqzaaS14FPyf1nuWqwzTmJQ5du03TlHBkLWtpOVv5lTrkHgg== X-Received: by 10.223.177.18 with SMTP id l18mr14215848wra.96.1484965586498; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 18:26:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.195.12.8 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 18:25:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 11:25:45 +0900 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Niklas Keller Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" , Leigh Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c1cd4b44980750546917eee Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Use decent entropy for uniqid($prefix, TRUE) From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki) --94eb2c1cd4b44980750546917eee Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Niklas, On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Niklas Keller wrote: > has this been committed? It's just the same BC issue as seeding mt_rand > with a CSPRNG by default. Not yet. I really don't see any pros for caring about failing CSPRNG and fallback to weak behavior. 1) BC is extremely unlikely. Basically, no BC on healthy hardware/OS. 2) Then things failed, programs should fail properly. i.e. Shouldn't fallback to weaker/problematic code. Broken CSPRNG is like BUS error, i.e. hardware error, why should we care so much about it? Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net --94eb2c1cd4b44980750546917eee--