Author dstufft
Recipients alex, christian.heimes, dstufft, hynek, jcea, neologix, pitrou, python-dev, tarek, vstinner
Date 2013-08-17.08:17:12
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1376727432.64.0.545596034198.issue18756@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
haypo: It's been suggested by a number of security professionals that using the OpenSSL random (or really any random) instead of urandom is likely to be a smarter idea. The likelyhood that urandom is broken is far less than any other source of random. This can be seen in the recent issues on the Android platform. This is not to say that there's a reason to believe that OpenSSL is broken currently, but that the chances are higher for it to be than /dev/urandom. An example of when this happened was http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571.

There's no reason to believe that OpenSSL is wrong right now, but the chances of OpenSSL being wrong are greater than the chances of /dev/urandom being

There's been a few threads on twitter about it in light of the Android SecureRandom issue (don't need to read these, just here for reference):
    - https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/368089082800246784
    - https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/367793231808843777
    - https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/368089362333827072



I don't think it actually matters if os.urandom or random.SystemRandom is the preferred interface that keeps the FD open but I do believe there should be one implementation that will use the OS source of random and maintain a persistent FD.
History
Date User Action Args
2013-08-17 08:17:12dstufftsetrecipients: + dstufft, jcea, pitrou, vstinner, christian.heimes, tarek, alex, neologix, python-dev, hynek
2013-08-17 08:17:12dstufftsetmessageid: <1376727432.64.0.545596034198.issue18756@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2013-08-17 08:17:12dstufftlinkissue18756 messages
2013-08-17 08:17:12dstufftcreate