Peter Bortas wrote: >o The random(), random_string() and random_seed() might be more random
> On computers with a hardware pseudo random generator random() can > return significantly more random numbers, however, this means that > random_seed is a no-op on those machines. That would mean that it becomes impossible to generate an identical random stream using the same random_seed between different runs or between different architectures. I'd say it would be prudent to switch to a predictable pseudo-random-sequence as soon as someone has called random_seed() with a non-zero parameter. If random_seed() is not being called, then it does not matter, and faster and more random is better. > A side-effect of this is that random_string is now actually > significantly faster on at least x86 cpu:s with rdrnd. > Note: If you want cryptographically random data please use > Crypto.Random.random_string unless you know for sure the random data > returned by the RDRND instruction is random enough. -- Stephen.
