Hi,
> I updated the RFC.
> 2nd parameter (more_entropy) is int now.
>
> - 0 for disable more entropy.
> (Compatible with current $more_entropy=FALSE)
> - 1 for 10 digits entropy. e.g. 1.23456789
> (Compatible with current $more_entropy=TRUE) DEFAULT
> - 13 to 255 to number of entropy [0-v]{13,255} chars.
> e.g. 1234abcdefghi (13 = 65 bits)
> 65 bits entropy + timestamp will provide good enough uniqueness for
> most usage.
>
> More secure default may be future scope, but attack against misused
> code will be much harder by default as a bonus.
>
> Default could be more secure by using [0-v]+.
> Marco does not like "." in default output.
>
> I would like to choose default from discussion (or make some vote choices)
Basically, I will not oppose if backward compatibility is kept (default
$number_of_entropy_chars = 0). I have no opinion about specifying
length of entropy chars.
However, I don't think this new 2nd parameter design is good.
- It is not natural (or straightforward) to specify 1 as
parameter named $number_of_entropy_chars, to use 10 digits
entropy ($more_entropy=TRUE compatible output).
- Why number of new style entropy ([0-9a-v]+) starts with 13?
(Why not 2 or 11?)
- Why max number of entropy is 255? (32^255 = 1275 bits)
(Ease of implementation?)
And, what will happen when 2-12, greater than 255, or negative
value is specified?
--
Kazuo Oishi
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
