2 ms·
> Contrary to other languages, D's current standard implementation of UUID4 isn't cryptographically secure It's hard to imagine a language designer choosing no
by ed25519FUUU 6y ago
> Contrary to other languages, D's current standard implementation of UUID4 isn't cryptographically secure
It's hard to imagine a language designer choosing not to make such an import part of the standard library cryptographically secure. Is there a story behind this?
- hcarvalhoalves 6y agoRelying on a client not being able to guess the next UUID is an attempt of security through obscurity, no? I don't think it's part of the requirement.
- hehebbssjj 6y agoRelying on a client not being able to guess a random number is also important for Diffe-Hellman and like, all private key generation AFAIK. I don't think anything says private keys are security by obscurity because they require you to locally generate random numbers
- Igelau 6y agoUUIDs aren't supposed to be secure. They're aren't supposed to be unguessable. They're just supposed to be very unlikely to be duplicated. They have one use case: as universally unique identifiers. That's it. Any expectation or off-label use that goes beyond that is misuse. In other news, most hammers are found to be unsafe to use as toothpicks.