On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 12:16:50PM +0200, Max wrote: > I'm somewhat confused with the implementation details: placing fallback into > library > would mean we effectively duplicate the fallback logic: the library might or > might > not fallback and than the application will have to decide if it's ok with the > fallback. > > I'd prefer to use secure only random in the library code and make insecure > fallback a > compile-time option in the application code. That way we can manage it on > application > or even case-by-case basis later on if we decide to drop it altogether.
I think we should have the related code only once, and that means it should be in the library. I don't want per-application specific fallback. In any case, to conserve our limited development resources, let's not have any fallback for the time being and wait if it ever turns out to be an issue for any of our users. -- - Harald Welte <[email protected]> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
