From 416e3a83ca713283356a2dba4bbf8fa3e01402ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Abhijit Menon-Sen Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 05:32:35 +0530 Subject: [PATCH] Don't suggest using srand for "cryptographic purposes" Also, don't suggest Math::Random::MT::Perl as a source of cryptographically secure randomness, because it isn't. --- pod/perlfunc.pod | 26 ++++++++++---------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/pod/perlfunc.pod b/pod/perlfunc.pod index 532ea3b..604123d 100644 --- a/pod/perlfunc.pod +++ b/pod/perlfunc.pod @@ -4876,8 +4876,8 @@ B is not cryptographically secure. You should not rely on it in security-sensitive situations.> As of this writing, a number of third-party CPAN modules offer random number generators intended by their authors to be cryptographically secure, -including: L, L, and -L. +including: L, L, L, +and L. =item read FILEHANDLE,SCALAR,LENGTH,OFFSET X X @@ -6627,10 +6627,7 @@ C at all. But there are a few situations in recent Perls where programs are likely to want to call C. One is for generating predictable results generally for testing or debugging. There, you use C, with the same C<$seed> -each time. Another other case is where you need a cryptographically-strong -starting point rather than the generally acceptable default, which is based on -time of day, process ID, and memory allocation, or the F device -if available. And still another case is that you may want to call C +each time. Another case is that you may want to call C after a C to avoid child processes sharing the same seed value as the parent (and consequently each other). @@ -6649,16 +6646,6 @@ current C