Re: How good is security via hashing

References	(1 earlier) <BANLkTinRJpe6zQ5EYVYXxjfc+ue=Gh-4JA@mail.gmail.com> <4DEE0CF9.6020508@chamonix.reportlab.co.uk> <islqg5$1eq$1@dough.gmane.org> <mailman.8.1307484500.11593.python-list@python.org> <7x39jl6on1.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>
Date	2011-06-07 22:25 -0700
Subject	Re: How good is security via hashing
From	geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.16.1307510716.11593.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Christian Heimes <lists@cheimes.de> writes:
>> PyCrypto has a strong pseudorandom number generator, too.
>
> If you mean the one at pycrypto.org, that page now says:
>
>    Random number generation
>
>    Do not use RandomPool to generate random numbers. Use Crypto.Random
>    instead. RandomPool is deprecated and will be removed in a future
>    release. See this thread to find out why.

On a related note, keyczar just got bitten by this.

> Crypto.Random just uses system randomness, which is the right thing to
> do.  It then goes and runs them through a distiller (Fortuna), which
> seems a little bit silly to me, but harmless.

IIRC this is mostly to help deal with the possibility of running on
older Windows machines, where the cryptographic random number service
was of very poor quality.

Geremy Condra

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: How good is security via hashing Christian Heimes <lists@cheimes.de> - 2011-06-08 00:08 +0200
  Re: How good is security via hashing Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-07 19:30 -0700
    Re: How good is security via hashing geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 22:25 -0700

csiph-web