Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator

From	Eduardo Bustamante <dualbus@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	gnu.bash.bug
Subject	Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator
Date	2018-12-15 21:41 -0800
Message-ID	<mailman.5792.1544938905.1284.bug-bash@gnu.org> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <CA+4vN7wkuCya7FES1HXiyFTF3a=pkVSdhVCthmjR29OwCAKZng@mail.gmail.com> <fa0b238c-9cb5-a840-ec6b-15cfd11d15cd@case.edu> <CA+4vN7zP26E6o13ysfppv8zjMWDV5BgQNQ1i6GP-3pg_ewVVeA@mail.gmail.com> <4bc5800d-0dfb-17a5-0b20-9f4bef5a60b6@case.edu> <CA+4vN7yTJRqc=8eCJWQMXu7nZu7ZreLTEp56SC-LTavSVW-d1A@mail.gmail.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 6:08 PM Ole Tange <tange@gnu.org> wrote:
(...)
> But your comment actually emphasizes my point: We _will_ have users
> who are naive enough to use $RANDOM in ways you and I would not do,
> because we know it is unsafe.
>
> Let's make those usages a little safer.

You know no one is stopping you from submitting a patch to actually
fix the documentation right? (or maybe, you know, submitting an actual
working patch to change the random generator, not just drop some
irrelevant code snippet you got from Wikipedia).

> And then we simply wait for Shellshock to happen.

Also, comparing this to shellshock is a huge strawman. Please don't do
that :), we all know better than that.

Back to gnu.bash.bug | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: $RANDOM not Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator Eduardo Bustamante <dualbus@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 21:41 -0800

csiph-web