Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #7180
| References | <4DEDFAEB.4050006@chamonix.reportlab.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-07 13:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: How good is security via hashing |
| From | geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2542.1307476969.9059.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Robin Becker <robin@reportlab.com> wrote: > A python web process is producing files that are given randomized names of > the form > > hhhhhh-YYYYMMDDhhmmss-rrrrrrrr.pdf > > where rrr.. is a 128bit random number (encoded as base62). The intent of the > random part is to prevent recipients of one file from being able to guess > the names of others. > > The process was originally a cgi script which meant each random number was > produced thusly > > > pid is process id, dur is 4 bytes from /dev/urandom. > > random.seed(long(time.time()*someprimeint)|(pid<<64)|(dur<<32)) > rrr = random.getrandbits(128) > > > is this algorithm safe? Is it safe if the process is switched to fastcgi and > the initialization is only carried out once and then say 50 rrr values are > generated. The advice you got about just using urandom seems to be the best you're likely to get. Given how few values you have to pull out of random.random to reconstruct its state, the progress that's been made in the last few years on similar hidden state problems, and the limited amount of entropy you're feeding it in the first place, I'd probably stay away from this method. And besides, # adds random junk to the filename- should make it hard to guess rrr = os.urandom(16) fname += base64.b64encode(rrr) has to be easier to read and reason about than the process above. Geremy Condra
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: How good is security via hashing geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 13:02 -0700
Re: How good is security via hashing Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-07 13:42 -0700
Re: How good is security via hashing Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 14:58 -0600
Re: How good is security via hashing geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 14:41 -0700
Re: How good is security via hashing Robin Becker <robin@reportlab.com> - 2011-06-08 10:13 +0100
Re: How good is security via hashing Thomas Rachel <nutznetz-0c1b6768-bfa9-48d5-a470-7603bd3aa915@spamschutz.glglgl.de> - 2011-06-08 13:30 +0200
csiph-web