On 08/02/2018 11:38, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
On 08/02/2018 11:37, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò
wrote:
"Instances of |java.util.Random| are threadsafe. However, the
concurrent
use of the same |java.util.Random| instance across threads
On 08/02/2018 11:37, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò
wrote:
"Instances of |java.util.Random| are threadsafe. However, the concurrent
use of the same |java.util.Random| instance across threads may encounter
contention and consequent poor perfor
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>
>
> "Instances of |java.util.Random| are threadsafe. However, the concurrent
> use of the same |java.util.Random| instance across threads may encounter
> contention and consequent poor performance. Consider instead using
> ThreadLo
On 08/02/2018 11:17, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
Hi Francesco,
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò
wrote:
I see... what about wrapping SecureRandom in ThreadLocal instead, e.g. replacing
What does wrapping SecureRandom in ThreadLocal buy us from a performance POV?
As ja
Hi Francesco,
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>
> I see... what about wrapping SecureRandom in ThreadLocal instead, e.g.
> replacing
>
What does wrapping SecureRandom in ThreadLocal buy us from a performance
POV?
> Also, we'll need to add to the reference guide
On 07/02/2018 13:02, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
Hi Francesco,
The feedback I have got is that the algorithm used in ThreadLocalRandom is
not secure enough to be considered a SecureRandom. So I think it's probably
not OK to switch if we are using it to generate tokens unfortunately.
I see... wh
Hi Francesco,
The feedback I have got is that the algorithm used in ThreadLocalRandom is
not secure enough to be considered a SecureRandom. So I think it's probably
not OK to switch if we are using it to generate tokens unfortunately.
Colm.
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Colm O hEigeartaigh
No, my query got passed on to someone else, still waiting to hear back
Colm.
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò
wrote:
> Hi,
> thanks for the feedback go to so far.
>
> I know from IRC that Colm has been exploring the security feasibility with
> some of his contacts: an
Hi,
thanks for the feedback go to so far.
I know from IRC that Colm has been exploring the security feasibility
with some of his contacts: any results so far?
Regards.
On 30/01/2018 08:24, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
Hi there,
any feedback on this?
If no one sees issues with that I'll pro
Hi,
+1 for me.
Best regards,
Matteo
On 24/01/2018 17:54, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
Hi all (and Colm in particular, as this should be in your chords),
we are currently basing all operations requiring random generation
(mainly tokens used during double opt-in and password reset, and
passw
Hi all,
for me definitely +1.
Best regards,
Andrea
Il 24/01/2018 17:54, Francesco Chicchiriccò ha scritto:
Hi all (and Colm in particular, as this should be in your chords),
we are currently basing all operations requiring random generation
(mainly tokens used during double opt-in and passwo
Hi there,
any feedback on this?
If no one sees issues with that I'll proceed as indicated.
Regards.
On 24/01/2018 17:54, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
Hi all (and Colm in particular, as this should be in your chords),
we are currently basing all operations requiring random generation
(mainly t
12 matches
Mail list logo
