marschall commented on PR #1250: URL: https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/1250#issuecomment-2298007624
> Would this be mitigated be changing `SecureRandom.getInstanceStrong()` to `new SecureRandom()`? IIUC the later is still cryptographically strong but would not block via using `/dev/urandom`. This could be done using a system property. Thus you can switch the type of secure(). No, this would be to get the behaviour of 3.14 back when using the static methods. The behavior specified by the API contract and therefore what a user would expect https://javadoc.io/doc/org.apache.commons/commons-lang3/3.14.0/org/apache/commons/lang3/RandomStringUtils.html > Caveat: Instances of [Random](https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/Random.html), upon which the implementation of this class relies, are not cryptographically secure. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
