On 04/06/2017 06:22 PM, Benjamin Barenblat wrote:
The fact that `rand` returns -1 on failure, however, is a bit scary. That sounds like a CVE waiting to happen – people aren’t going to check the result code from `rand`. Adam, how would you feel about it returning an `option` or throwing an application error if it fails?
Raising an error seems like a reasonable idea. It could signal to snooping parties that we ran out of entropy, but I hope that isn't such a serious leak. Any other strong opinions from people watching the list?
BTW, Ur/Web is also already using cryptographic hashing internally, for CSRF cookie signatures, so perhaps it also makes sense to expose functionality of your other library by default.
_______________________________________________ Ur mailing list Ur@impredicative.com http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
